297-Page Decision in W. MI U. Vaccine Mandate Case Dated Oct. 7th, 2021

Case: 21-2945 Document: 10-1 Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 1 (1 of 297)
IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
EMILY DAHL, HANNAH REDOUTE,

BAILEY KORHORN, MORGAN
OTTESON, JAKE MOERTL, KIA BROOKS, No. 21 – 2945
AUBREE ENSIGN, REILLY JACOBSON,
TAYLOR WILLIAMS, KAELYN PARKER,
ANNALISE JAMES, MAXWELL HUNTLEY,
SIDNEY SCHAFER, DANIELLE NATTE,
NICOLE MOREHOUSE, and KATELYN
SPOONER,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF

WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY,
EDWARD MONTGOMERY, President of WMU,
KATHY BEAUREGARD, WMU Athletic Director,
and TAMMY L. MILLER, Associate Director of
Institutional Equity,
Defendants-Appellants.
____________________________________________________________________
APPELLANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY INJUNCTION PENDING

APPEAL AND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2), Appellants move for an immediate
stay of the preliminary injunction entered by the district court on September
13, 2021 (ECF No. 25), and for a stay of proceedings pending resolution of this
appeal. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 62, Appellants first
sought this relief in the district court. (Defendants’ Motion for Stay of
Proceedings, ECF No. 29; Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Injunction, ECF No. 33).
The district court denied the Motion for Stay of Proceedings (ECF No. 32), and
the Motion for Stay of Injunction. (ECF No. 37).
This litigation and current appeal arise out of the COVID-19 vaccination
policy adopted by the Western Michigan University (WMU) Department of
Intercollegiate Athletics. The policy was announced on August 12, 2021. (First
Amended Complaint (FAC), ECF No. 15-2, PageID 180). The policy states that in
order to “maintain full involvement in the athletic department, all student-
athletes, coaches, and athletic staff members” were required to provide proof
of vaccination of, at a minimum, a first COVID-19 vaccine no later than August
31, 2021. (Id.) The policy then states: “Medical or religious exemptions and
accommodations will be considered on an individual basis.” (Id.)
WMU’s policy was challenged originally by four members of the WMU
women’s soccer team on August 30, 2021, raising, inter alia, a First Amendment
claim that WMU’s policy violated the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Free Exercise
clause. (Complaint, ECF No. 1). On August 31, 2021, the district court issued an
ex parte TRO enjoining enforcement of the policy as to the named Plaintiffs,
finding that strict scrutiny should apply to the challenged policy and that
Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise claim. (TRO,
2
ECF No. 7, 8). An Amended Complaint was filed on September 3, 2021 naming
as plaintiffs twelve addition WMU students who participate in athletic
department programs. (ECF No. 15). The parties stipulated to extend the TRO
to cover the additional plaintiffs pending a hearing on the motion for
preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 20).
The district court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary
injunction on September 9, 2021. At the conclusion of the hearing the district
court stated it would grant the preliminary injunction and continued the TRO
until a written order was issued. (ECF No. 23, 24). On September 13, 2021, the
district court issued its Opinion and Order granting the motion for preliminary
injunction. (ECF No. 25). The preliminary injunction entered by the district
court again ruled that strict scrutiny would be applied to the WMU policy and
that Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. (Id.) The
Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal on September 17, 2021. (ECF No. 26).
The district court’s ruling did not enjoin any religious discrimination
directed at the Plaintiffs, as the record is devoid of any evidence of religious
discrimination or animus. The district court’s ruling did not enjoin any action
that prevented the Plaintiffs from freely exercising their religion, as the
Plaintiffs have never been threatened with involuntary vaccination. What the
district court’s ruling has done is require WMU to extend privileged treatment
3
to the Plaintiffs that is not available to any other student athlete and give them
license to expose their teammates to a heightened risk of exposure to COVID-
19. This ruling is incompatible with Free Exercise jurisprudence.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Plaintiffs are all students at WMU and participants in programs
administered by the WMU Department of Intercollegiate Athletics. All Plaintiffs
are subject to the COVID-19 vaccination policy announced by Athletic Director
Kathy Beauregard on August 12, 2021. (First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 15,
¶¶ 27 – 29, PageID 153). The policy states that in order to “maintain full
involvement in the athletic department, all student-athletes, coaches, and
athletic staff members” were required to provide proof of vaccination of, at a
minimum, a first COVID-19 vaccine no later than August 31, 2021. (Id.) The
policy then states: “Medical or religious exemptions and accommodations will
be considered on an individual basis.” (Id.)
Prior to the August 31, 2021 deadline for providing proof of vaccination,
each Plaintiff requested a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination
requirement while participating in intercollegiate athletics by submitting a
“Religious Accommodation Request Form” to WMU’s Office of Institutional
Equity. (ECF No. 15-3 through 15-26). WMU denied the request that the
Plaintiffs be allowed to participate in the athletic programs while unvaccinated
4
but has not required any Plaintiff to be vaccinated in violation of their religious
beliefs. (Id.; Affidavit of Tammy Miller, ECF No. 18-3). Simply stated, WMU
granted the Plaintiffs’ religious exemption from the vaccination, but denied
their request to continue participating in the athletic program while
unvaccinated. (Affidavit of Tammy Miller, ECF No. 18-3, ¶ 6, PageID 340). Every
Plaintiff has continued as a student in good standing at WMU, remains on the
team roster, and those receiving athletic scholarships continue on scholarship.
(Affidavit of Tammy Miller, ECF No. 18-3; Affidavit of Kathy Beauregard, ECF
No. 18-2, ¶ 24, PageID 336). Conversely, any student in the athletic program
who is unvaccinated but has not received either a medical or religious
exemption is in violation of the Code of Conduct and subject to discipline up to
and including dismissal from the team and loss of scholarship. (Affidavit of
Kathy Beauregard, ECF No. 18-2, ¶ 18, PageID 334 – 335.)
ARGUMENT
I. The Court should stay or suspend the injunction pending
resolution of the appeal as the district court erroneously ruled that strict
scrutiny applied to WMU’s policy which is neutral toward religion and
generally applicable and the defendants are likely to prevail on the merits
when rational basis is applied.
A. Standard
5
This Court evaluates four factors when deciding whether to grant a stay
under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a):
‘(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on the
merits of the appeal; (2) the likelihood that the moving party will
be irreparably harmed absent a stay; (3) the prospect that others
will be harmed if the court grants the stay; and (4) the public
interest in granting the stay.’ Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
v. Granholm, 473 F.3d 237, 244 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Michigan
Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d
150, 153 (6th Cir. 1991)). ‘These factors are not prerequisites that
must be met, but are interrelated considerations that must be
balanced together.’ Mich. Coal., 945 F.2d at 153.
DV Diamond Club of Flint, LLC v. Small Bus. Admin., 960 F.3d 743, 745–746 (6th
Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). A district court’s decision to grant a preliminary
injunction will be reversed “only if the district court relied upon clearly
erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the governing law, or used an
erroneous legal standard.” Id. at 746 (cleaned up).
B. Likelihood of success on the merits.
1. The WMU policy is neutral toward religion and generally
applicable and rational basis review should apply.
“Where a challenged law is neutral and of general applicability and has
merely an ‘incidental effect’ on Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, Defendants need not
show a compelling governmental interest. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc.
6
v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531 (1993); see also Emp. Div., Dep't of Hum. Res.
of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 878 (1990) (holding that if burdening the
exercise of religion is ‘merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and
otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.’).”
Resurrection School v. Hertel, supra. “Even if a law appears neutral and is devoid
of animus, it is not neutral and of general applicability if it is ‘riddled with
exemptions.’ Ward v. Polite, 667 F.3d 727, 738 (6th Cir. 2012).” Resurrection
School v. Hertel, supra. In Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, 957 F.3d 610,
614 (6th Cir. 2020), this Court discussed the distinction between a generally
applicable policy and one that is not generally applicable:
As a rule of thumb, the more exceptions to a prohibition, the

less likely it will count as a generally applicable, non-
discriminatory law. Ward, 667 F.3d at 738. ‘At some point, an
exception-ridden policy takes on the appearance and reality of a
system of individualized exemptions, the antithesis of a neutral and
generally applicable policy and just the kind of state action that
must run the gauntlet of strict scrutiny.’ Id. at 740.
Id. at 614 (emphasis added).
In this case WMU’s policy has two exemptions: a medical exemption and
a religious exemption. WMU was not required to include a religious exemption
at all. “Moreover, [Plaintiff] has not been denied any legal right on the basis of
her religion. Constitutionally, Nikolao has no right to an exemption. See
7
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 38, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643 (1905)
(holding that compulsory vaccination laws with only medical exemptions do
not violate any federal constitutional right).” Nikolao v. Lyon, 875 F.3d 310, 316
(6th Cir. 2017).
WMU created a vaccine mandate that is neutral toward religion. It then
created a religious exemption that allowed student-athletes to forego
vaccination, remain students in good standing, remain on the team, and retain
their athletic scholarship, but did not allow them to continue participating in
team events. Under Nikolao the law views that religious exemption as a matter
of grace. Ironically, the Plaintiffs’ Catch-22 position, which was essentially
adopted by the district court, is that by creating the religious exemption WMU
has exposed itself to a claim of religious discrimination. This is inconsistent
with the precedents of the Supreme Court and this Court. WMU’s policy is not
“riddled with secular exemptions.” It is neutral toward religion and generally
applicable. Rational basis review should apply. Resurrection School v. Hertel,
supra. (“We conclude that the MDHHS Orders do not violate the Free Exercise
Clause because the MDHHS Orders are neutral and of general applicability and
satisfy rational-basis review.”).
2. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia does not mandate application of
strict scrutiny.
8
The district court applied strict scrutiny based on its view that Fulton v.
City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021), expanded the Free
Exercise clause.
Second, as the Court interprets Fulton, the Supreme Court has

expanded the prohibition against individualized exemptions.
Certainly, Supreme Court authority pre-Fulton suggested limits on
Free Exercise claims arising from a system of individualized
exemptions to employment situations where the governmental
entity refused to grant the exemption for religious reasons only. See
Smith, 494 U.S. at 883 (“We have never invalidated any
governmental action on the basis of the Sherbert test except the
denial of unemployment compensation. Although we have
sometimes purported to apply the Sherbert test in contexts other
than that, we have always found the test satisfied[.]”). Fulton
describes that prohibition more broadly. Rather than being limited
to discretionary denial of exceptions for religious beliefs, a
governmental policy is not generally applicable when it contains a
discretionary basis for accepting or rejecting the otherwise general
rule.
(ECF No. 25, PageID 367.) The Plaintiffs in the Resurrection School case made a
similar argument which this Court rejected:
At oral argument, Plaintiffs argued that the Supreme Court's recent

decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct.
1868, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2021), pronounced a different standard. …
The Fulton majority's narrow holding focused on a contract
provision that permitted the commissioner of the city's
Department of Human Services to grant exemptions to the non-
discrimination clause in her “sole discretion.” Id. at 1878. …
Although the plaintiffs and some of the concurring justices asked
9
that the Court reconsider Smith, the majority declined to do so

because the city's policy was not neutral and of general
applicability, and thus, fell outside the scope of Smith. Id. at 1876–
77.
Resurrection School v. Hertel, supra. The district court’s reading of Fulton is
inaccurate. The Fulton decision rests squarely on existing Supreme Court
precedent and did not expand the circumstances under which strict scrutiny
applies. The Supreme Court in Fulton stated quite clearly:
Like the good cause provision in Sherbert, section 3.21

incorporates a system of individual exemptions, made available in
this case at the “sole discretion” of the Commissioner. The City has
made clear that the Commissioner “has no intention of granting an
[religious] exception” to CSS. App. to Pet. for Cert. 168a. But the City
“may not refuse to extend that [exemption] system to cases of
‘religious hardship’ without compelling reason.” Smith, 494 U.S. at
884, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (quoting Roy, 476 U.S. at 708, 106 S.Ct. 2147).
Fulton, 141 S. Ct. at 1878. Fulton did not expand the “prohibition against
individualized exemptions.” It relied on the Sherbert and Smith decisions which
the Court found controlled the outcome. WMU’s application of its neutral,
generally applicable policy did not transform it into one “riddled with secular
exceptions” to which strict scrutiny applies.
3. The religious exemption and the medical exemption are
treated identically by WMU.
10
The facts of this case are completely dissimilar to the facts of Fulton and
Sherbert, where secular exemptions were entrusted to the unfettered
discretion of the decisionmaker, but no religious exemptions were even
considered. Here there is a single secular exemption and a religious exemption.
Both operate in the same fashion and are implemented in the same way
(Affidavit of Kathy Beauregard and Tammy Miller, ECF No. 18-2 and 18-3). Any
person seeking and receiving a medical exemption would be subject to the same
treatment as a person receiving a religious exemption: they would continue as
a student in good standing; they would remain on scholarship; they would
remain a member of the team; but they would not be allowed to participate in
team events while unvaccinated.
Every student who applied for a religious exemption received one. Ms.
Miller averred that she accepted each student’s statement of their religious
belief and the sincerity of that belief. (Affidavit of Tammy Miller, ECF No. 18-3,
¶¶ 4, 6, PageID 339-340). Student athletes who receive a medical exemption
and those who receive a religious exemption are treated identically, and
Plaintiffs have not alleged that WMU has allowed a student who received a
medical exemption to continue to participate in team events. On the other hand,
any student in the athletic program who is unvaccinated but has not received
either a medical or religious exemption is in violation of the Code of Conduct
11
and subject to discipline up to and including dismissal from the team and loss
of scholarship. (Affidavit of Kathy Beauregard, ECF No. 18-2, ¶ 18, PageID 334
– 335). There is not the slightest whiff of animus toward religion in this case.
The district court also drew a distinction between impermissible
individualized exemptions and permissible individualized adjudication, citing
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 6 F.4th 1160 (10th Cir. 2021), a case that rejected the
argument that strict scrutiny applied. Id. at 1186, n. 8. The 10th Circuit majority
opinion actually supports WMU’s position:
[A] system of individualized exemptions is one that gives rise to the

application of a subjective test.” Axson-Flynn, 356 F.3d at 1297
(internal quotation omitted). Conversely, an exemption is not
“individualized” simply because it “contain[s] express exceptions
for objectively defined categories of persons.” Id. at 1298. As we
explained in Axson-Flynn, “[w]hile of course it takes some degree
of individualized inquiry to determine whether a person is
eligible for even a strictly defined exemption, that kind of
limited yes-or-no inquiry is qualitatively different from the
kind of case-by-case system envisioned by the Smith Court in
its discussion of Sherbert and related cases.” Id.
…
The Dissent's discussion of the individualized exemption exception
conflates an “individualized exemption” with “individualized
adjudication.” For example, the Dissent concludes that the
individualized exemption exception should apply because “the
entire CADA enforcement mechanism is structured to make case-
by-case determinations.” Dissent at 1207–08; see also id. at 1211
(“By demonstrating that CADA sets up a case-by-case system for
determining exceptions, Ms. Smith has shown CADA's application
12
here must be reviewed with strict scrutiny with regard to the free
exercise claims.”). Accordingly, CADA does not grant
“individualized exemptions” simply because causation is
determined by the specific facts of each case.”
Elenis, 6 F.4th at 1187 (emphasis added). The record in this case establishes
that a “yes or no” decision was made as to whether the Plaintiffs’ request for a
religious exemption was based on sincerely held religious beliefs. That question
was answered in the affirmative for each Plaintiff, and each received an
exemption from the vaccination requirement. What they did not receive was
their desired accommodation: to continue to participate in the athletic program
while unvaccinated.
It appears the district court literally elevated form over substance in this
case by characterizing the Defendants’ actions as having denied the request for
a religious exemption. While the actual WMU form had an “X” on the denial line,
the substance of the decision was to grant the Plaintiffs’ requests for religious
exemptions (no Plaintiff has been vaccinated against their will) while denying
their requested accommodation (continuing to participate in team events while
unvaccinated). All of WMU’s decisions were made prior to the filing of the
original Complaint. (See, ECF No. 15-3 through 15-26).
The district court also took issue with what it considered to be an
incomplete policy when it was first announced:
13
Student athletes were told that they could request a religious

exemption. When they did, Defendants denied the requests and
offered an alternative or compromise for the first time (keep the
scholarship). That alternative was not identified in the ‘policy.’
That alternative was not disclosed on the ‘Religious
Accommodation Request Form’ until after Plaintiffs completed the
form and submitted it to Defendants.”
(ECF No. 25. PageID 366). But it is not clear why that impacts whether strict
scrutiny applies or why the policy runs afoul of the Free Exercise clause. No
Plaintiff has alleged she or he would have acted any differently had the original
announcement of the policy included the information the Court identifies as
missing. Assume the original August 9, 2021 announcement stated that if a
religious or medical exemption were sought and obtained the student would
remain enrolled, keep their scholarship, remain on the team, but would not be
able to participate in team events. How would that have changed the posture of
the policy from a constitutional standpoint? Nothing would have changed. The
Plaintiffs would have still sought the exemption, received it, but been denied
the specific accommodation they requested. No Plaintiff has alleged she or he
received the vaccination under duress and would have refrained from doing so
if they knew they would have kept their scholarship without receiving the
vaccination. Simply stated, nothing is different now than it would have been
had the “missing” information been included in the original announcement.
14
4. The district court erred applying strict scrutiny based on
“coercion.”
The district court’s ruling that the denial of the Plaintiffs’ requested
exemption functioned to coerce them into violating their sincerely held
religious beliefs is also based on an erroneous standard. The district court
implicitly ruled that participation in intercollegiate athletics can form the basis
of the claim of coercion, since the Plaintiffs have not alleged the denial of
anything else. However, Plaintiffs have conceded participation in
intercollegiate athletics is not a constitutionally protected interest:
While Plaintiffs certainly do not have a fundamental constitutional

right to be on an intercollegiate sports team, they do have the right
to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, and
they do have a benefit and privilege of being on WMU’s athletic
teams.
(Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief, ECF No. 21, PageID 349) (emphasis added). It is
presumably the emphasized portion of this statement that the district court
relied on in ruling the Plaintiffs were subjected to forbidden coercion. But a
“benefit and privilege of being on WMU’s athletic teams” is not something the
Free Exercise clause protects.
The Free Exercise clause protects against forcing one to choose between
violating a sincerely held religious belief or foregoing a generally available
15
benefit. This is the basis for numerous Supreme Court decisions. For example,
in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439, 449 (1988),
the Supreme Court rejected a Free Exercise claim brought by a Native American
organization challenging the construction of a road through sacred ground:
The building of a road or the harvesting of timber on publicly

owned land cannot meaningfully be distinguished from the use of
a Social Security number in Roy. In both cases, the challenged
Government action would interfere significantly with private
persons' ability to pursue spiritual fulfillment according to their
own religious beliefs. In neither case, however, would the affected
individuals be coerced by the Government's action into violating
their religious beliefs; nor would either governmental action
penalize religious activity by denying any person an equal share
of the rights, benefits, and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.
Id. at 449 (emphasis added). In Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n of Fla.,
480 U.S. 136, (1987), Thomas v. Review Board, Indiana Employment Security
Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the
Supreme Court recognized viable coercion claims under the Free Exercise
clause where the plaintiffs’ eligibility for unemployment benefits – a generally
available benefit – was conditioned on agreeing to be available to work at a time
or in a place that violated their sincerely held religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court applied this same rationale when it sustained a Free
Exercise challenge to a Montana law that prohibited parents from using a state
16
funded stipend at religious schools. “Here too Montana's no-aid provision bars
religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character
of the schools. The provision also bars parents who wish to send their children
to a religious school from those same benefits, again solely because of the
religious character of the school.” Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S.
Ct. 2246, 2255 (2020) (emphasis added). In Trinity Lutheran Church of
Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017), the Supreme Court identified
the denial of a “generally available benefit” as triggering the Free Exercise
violation: “… this Court has repeatedly confirmed that denying a generally
available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on
the free exercise of religion that can be justified only by a state interest ‘of the
highest order.’” Id. at 2019 (emphasis added). In Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712,
726–727 (2004), Justice Scalia’s dissent referred to generally available public
benefits as part of the baseline against which burdens on religion are measured.
That statement was discussed in Justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion without
disagreement, but was distinguished on the facts of the case:
Justice SCALIA argues, however, that generally available benefits

are part of the “baseline against which burdens on religion are
measured.” Post, at 1316 (dissenting opinion). Because the
Promise Scholarship Program funds training for all secular
professions, Justice SCALIA contends the State must also fund
17
training for religious professions. See ibid. But training for religious
professions and training for secular professions are not fungible.
Id. at 721.
In this case the Plaintiffs have not been coerced into giving up a generally
available benefit. Participation in intercollegiate athletics is not a generally
available benefit and is not a constitutionally protected right. Karmanos v.
Baker, 816 F.2d 258, 260 (6th Cir. 1987); Graham v. NCAA, 804 F.2d 953, 959 n.
2 (6th Cir. 1986). Since Plaintiffs have not been put to the choice of either
forfeiting a generally available benefit or a constitutionally protected interest,
there is no basis for employing strict scrutiny based on a coercion theory. While
regulations must place religious activities on par with the most favored class of
comparable secular activities, or face strict scrutiny, Roman Cath. Diocese of
Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 66–67 (2020), there is no requirement that one
claiming an exemption under the Free Exercise clause is entitled to more
favorable treatment.
C. WMU’s policy satisfied rational basis review.
Executive actions are viewed through the lens of a very modest, or
“rational basis,” standard of review. League of Indep. Fitness Facilities &
Trainers, Inc. v. Whitmer, 814 F. App'x 125, 126 (6th Cir. 2020). This is the same
standard that is applied to legislative actions. FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc.,
18
508 U.S. 307, 315 (1993). Under this standard courts may not second-guess a
state's “medical and scientific judgments.” Preterm-Cleveland v. McCloud, 994
F.3d 512, 527 (6th Cir. 2021). Courts must also defer to a state's judgment that
there is a problem that merits correction. The government has “no obligation”
to produce evidence supporting the rationality of its actions. TriHealth, Inc. v.
Bd. of Comm'rs, Hamilton County, 430 F.3d 783, 790 (6th Cir. 2005).
WMU’s policy addresses a problem that it believes merits correction:
minimizing exposure of its student athletes to COVID-19. The means chosen –
vaccination – is rationally related to achieving that goal. See Bd. of Education v.
Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 830–831 (2002) (upholding school drug testing policy
requiring students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities to
submit to drug testing).
D. The other three factors favor staying the injunction.
1. Irreparable harm.
“But even the strongest showing on the other three factors cannot
‘eliminate the irreparable harm requirement.’ Friendship Materials, Inc. v. Mich.
Brick, Inc., 679 F.2d 100, 105 (6th Cir. 1982). That factor is indispensable: If the
plaintiff isn’t facing imminent and irreparable injury, there’s no need to grant
relief now as opposed to at the end of the lawsuit.” D.T. v. Sumner County
Schools, 942 F.3d 324, 326–327 (6th Cir. 2019).
19
WMU is at greater risk of irreparable harm than are the Plaintiffs. A
Covid-19 outbreak could jeopardize a team’s entire season. Conversely, the
Plaintiffs are not at risk of suffering irreparable harm. Not participating in
athletic events is not an irreparable harm, since participating in athletic events
is not a constitutionally protected interest as discussed above. The Plaintiffs are
not at risk of being held down and having a needle stuck in their arm.
Participation in athletic events is not alleged to be part of any Plaintiff’s exercise
of religion. The Plaintiffs all obtained the exemption they sought – none are
required to be vaccinated. What they did not receive was the accommodation
they demanded. Since participation in athletic events is not a constitutionally
protected interest and is not part of any Plaintiff’s exercise of religion, being
required to refrain from participation is not irreparable harm. “[A]
plaintiff must present the existence of an irreparable injury to get a preliminary
injunction.” Id. at 327.
2. Injury to other interested parties if the Court grants the stay.
The other student athletes participating in WMU’s athletic program are
potentially at risk of contracting a deadly disease when they must compete with
unvaccinated teammates if the Court does not grant the stay. While those
student-athletes might be exposed to unvaccinated individuals in other aspects
of their lives, the physical nature of the competitive sports, the physical
20
proximity of teammates, and the length of exposure among teammates is all
significantly greater in the team setting.
The Supreme Court stated in a different context that “while the
Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide
pact.” Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 160 (1963). While the
Plaintiffs’ right to the free exercise of religion is unquestioned, how far does it
go? Participation in intercollegiate athletics is not part of the exercise of any
Plaintiff’s religion, nor do any of the Plaintiffs suggest that it is. Plaintiffs are not
being vaccinated against their will. The WMU policy – before it was enjoined by
the district court – required them to cease participation in team events if they
received a medical or religious exemption from the vaccination requirement.
At bottom Plaintiffs assert their religious beliefs immunize them from WMU’s
vaccination requirement and grant them a license to expose their teammates to
the COVID-19 virus. The Free Exercise clause does not compel that result.
3. Public interest in granting the stay.
The legislative response to the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrates that the
political branches have clearly announced the necessity for vaccines to protect
public health. Congress has appropriated tens of billions of dollars for the
development and distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine. See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 116-
260, Division M (2020). Other federal programs established by the political
21
branches likewise encourage vaccination to promote public health. See, e.g.,
Vaccines for Children Program (VFC), available at
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/index.html. (“The Vaccines For
Children (VFC) program is a federally funded program that provides vaccines
at no cost to children who might not otherwise be vaccinated because of
inability to pay.”). Such programs indicate legislative judgments that vaccines
promote public health. The public interest favors granting the stay.
II. The Court should stay proceedings in the district court
pending resolution of the appeal.
Weaver v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 970 F.2d 1523, 1528 (6th Cir. 1992)
acknowledged that an appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction
over issues not implicated in the appeal. While the Plaintiffs have asserted
additional claims in the Amended Complaint, all arise out of the same core issue
– WMU’s vaccination policy and the religious exemption claimed by the
Plaintiffs. A denial of the request to stay proceedings will result in additional
legal challenges to the sufficiency of the remaining claims in the Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint. The Defendants submit that awaiting a ruling on the
appeal will better serve the parties and the Court in terms of the expenditure of
time and resources. If any of the remaining claims survive a Rule 12 motion and
discovery proceeds on the surviving claims, it will likely have to be repeated if
22
the Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise claim survives on appeal. Such a scenario is a recipe
for needless duplication, waste, and expense.
RELIEF REQUESTED
The Defendants-Appellants request the Court enter an order staying the
district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction and staying the
district court proceedings pending resolution of this appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: September 27, 2021 PLUNKETT COONEY
BY: /s/ Michael S.Bogren______________

Michael S. Bogren (P34835)
Attorney for Defendants
BUSINESS ADDRESS:
333 Bridge Street, NW, Suite 530
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504
Direct Dial: 269/226-8822
mbogren@plunkettcooney.com
Open.07616.14299.27232736-1
Open.07616.14299.27232736-2
23
INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS
A. Notice of Appeal
B. Opinion and Order Granting Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 25)
C. Motion for Stay of Injunction and Brief in Support (ECF No. 33, 34)
D. Order Denying Motion for Stay of Injunction (ECF No. 37)
E. Motion for Stay of Proceedings and Brief in Support (ECF No. 28, 29)
F. Order Denying Motion for Stay of Proceedings (ECF No. 32)
G. First Amended Complaint with all attachments (ECF No. 15, 15-1 – 16-26)
H. Ex Parte Motion for TRO and Brief in Support (ECF No. 2, 2-1)
I. Order Granting Motion for TRO (ECF No. 7, 8)
J. Response to Motion for Injunctive Relief with attachments (ECF No. 18,
18-1 – 18-3)
K. Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 21)
Open.07616.14299.27240782-1
ATTACHMENT A
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-SJB ECF No. 26, PagelD.372 Filed 09117/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN,SOUTHERN DIVISION

OTTESON,JAKE MOERTL,KIA BROOKS, Case No. 1:21-cv-757
TAYLOR WILLIAMS, KAELYN PARKER, Hon. Paul L. Maloney
NICOLE MOREHOUSE,and KATELYN
SPOONER,
Plaintiffs,
v.

EDWARD MONTGOMERY,President of WMU,
KATHY BEAUREGARD,WMU Athletic Director,
and TAMMY L. MILLER,Associate Director of
Defendants.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that The Board of Trustees of Western Michigan University,
Edward Montgomery, Kathy Beauregard, and Tammy L. Miller hereby appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the Opinion and Order Granting a
Preliminary Injunction entered in this action on the 13th day of September 2021, and all
adverse orders and rulings in this matter.

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-SJB ECF No. 26, PagelD.373 Filed 09/17/21 Page 2 of 2
BY: /s/Michael S. Bogren

BUSINESS ADDRESS:
333 Bridge Street, NW,Suite 530
mbogren(cbplunkettcooney.com
Open.07616.14299.27177975-1
2
ATTACHMENT B

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EMILY DAHL, et di, )

Plaintiffs, )
) No. 1:21-cv-757
-v- )
) Honorable Paul L. Maloney
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WESTERN )
MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, et al, )
Defendants. )
)
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Western Michigan University requires its student athletes to receive a COVID-19
vaccination. The University informed its student athletes that it would consider medical and
religious exemptions On an individual basis. Plaintiffs, all student athletes, each submitted a
request for a religious exemption from the vaccine requirement. The University denied each
request, asserting that it had a compelling interest. Plaintiffs sued, alleging a violation of the
rights under the Free Exercise Clause. Reviewing the claim under strict scrutiny, the Court
concludes Defendants have not established that the vaccine requirement is narrowly tailored
to meet its compelling interest. The Court will grant Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction
enjoining Defendants from enforcing the vaccine mandate against Plaintiffs during this
litigation.
I.
Plaintiffs learned about a vaccination requirement when they received a text sent by
Defendant Kathy Beauregard around 6:00 p.m. on August 21, 2021. (ECF No. 1-2
PageID.20.) Western Michigan University (WMU or University) required individuals

associated with the athletic department,including student athletes, to provide proofof at least
the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine no later than August 31, 2021. The announcement
indicated that "Imledical and religious exemptions and accommodations would be
considered on an individual basis." (Id) The text did not provide any fiuther explanation
about exemptions or accommodations. The text did not identify any penalty or consequence
for failing to provide proof of vaccination by the deadline. Plaintiffs plead that if they do not
receive the required vaccinations, they will be removed from their positions on their teams
and will not be permitted to participate in intercollegiate sports. (ECF No. 15 Compl. ¶ 41
PageID.333.) On the record befbre this Court, the text is the University's written vaccine
requirement policy. Defendants have not filed any other document as the written policy. In
her affidavit, Defendant Beauregard, in paragraphs 10 and 11, refers to the "policy" and
quotes language from the text she sent on August 21.' (ECF No. 18-2 Beauregard Aff.
10-11 PageID.333.)
Plaintiffs plead that on August 23, having not received any information about the
procedure for requesting an exemption or accommodation, they wrote to Defendants and
asking that the procedure be disclosed. (Compl. ¶ 43 PageID.155.) The next day, Plaintiffs
"received a link to the procedures." (Id 11 44 PageID.155.)
Using the document supplied by WMU, each Plaintiff submitted a "Religious
Accommodation Request Form." (See, e.g., ECF No. 1-3 Otteson Request PageID.22.)
Part 2 of the form gives WMU two options for a requested accommodation: approved and
It is possible that Defendant Beauregard quotes some other document that is currently
unknown to the Court. The affidavit does not identify any particular document as the "policy."
denied. WMU checked the line next to "denied" for each Plaintiff. Below that line, the
form states "If the requested accommodation is denied, what are some alternative
accommodations (list in order of preference):" WMU then wrote
1. Maintain Scholarship fbr 2021-2022

2. No participation in Intercollegiate sports
3. Comply with testing and masking mandate.
Near the bottom of the page, the fbrm states "If no agreement on an accommodation,
provide an explanationlr WMU gave the same explanation to each Plaintiff.
The University has a compelling interest in taking action to avoid the significant
risk posed to the intercollegiate athletic programs of a Covid-19 outbreak due
to unvaccinated participants and prohibiting unvaccinated members of the
teams from engaging in practices and competition is the only effective manner
of accomplishing this compelling interest.
Plaintiffs plead that being vaccinated would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
(Compl. II 29 pageID.153.)
Plaintiffs sued when they learned that they would not be allowed to participate in
intercollegiate sports if they did not violate their religious beliefs and receive a vaccination.
Plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order, which this Court granted. (ECF No. 7.)
Defendants filed a response. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiffs filed a reply. (ECF No. 21.) On
September 9, 2021, the Court held a hearing to consider whether to convert the temporary
restraining order to a preliminary injunction.
II.
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs requests for preliminary
injunctions. District court exercise their discretion when granting or denying preliminary
injunctions. Planet Aid v. City ofSt.johns, Michigan, 782 F.3d 318, 323 (6th Cir. 2015).
When deciding a motion for a preliminary injunction, a court should consider and balance
four factors:(1) whether the plaintiff has established a substantial likelihood or probability of
success on the merits;(2) whether there is a threat of irreparable harm to the plaintiff;(3) the
balance of equities; and (4) whether granting injunctive relief services the public's interest.
Daunt V. Benson,956 F.3d 396,406(6th Cir. 2020). When a court considers the fbur factors
as part of a constitutional challenge, "'the likelihood of success on the merits often will be
the determinative factor." Thompson v. De Wine,976 F.3d 610,615 6th Cir. 2020)(quoting
Obama Ibr America v. Halsted, 697 F.3d 423, 436 (6th Cir. 2012)). The United States
Supreme Court has stated that a preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary and drastic
remedy," Mum/v. Geren„553 U.S. 674, 69()(2008) (citation omitted) that should "only be
awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief," Winter y Nat. Res.
Del: Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22(2008)(citation omitted).
III.
The First Amendment to our Constitution provides, in part, that "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereofl.I" U.S. Coast. amend I. The latter phrase, the Free Exercise Clause, provides
protections against laws that "discriminate against sonic or all religious beliefs or regulates or
prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons." Church ofthe Lublin]
Babalu Aye,Inc. V. City ofHialeah„508 U.S. 520,532(1993). The Supreme Court has held
that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the First Amendment's protections against the
states. See Maye v Klee,915 F.3d 1076, 1083(6th Cir. 2019)(citing Cantwell v. Connecticut,
310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940)).

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-SJB ECF No. 25, PageID.363 Filed 09/13/21 Page 5 of 13
The Sixth Circuit has held that a Free Exercise Clause claim must be "predicated On
coercion." Nikoho V. Lyon, 875 F.3d 310, 316 (6th Cir. 2017)(quoting Mozert v. Hawkins
Co: Bd. of Mire., 827 F.2d 1058, 1066 (6th Cir. 1963)). Plaintiffs can establish a Free
Exercise claim by showing that WNW requires them to do an act that would violate their
religious beliefs. See Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 710 (2014)("As
the Court explained in a later case, the 'exercise of religion' involves 'not only belief and
profession but the performance of(or abstention from) physical acts' that are 'engaged in for
religious reasons.") (quoting Emp't Dirt, Dep't ofHuman Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494
U.S. 872, 877 (1990)); Mozert, 827 F.2d at 1066 ("It is clear that governmental compulsion
either to do or refrain from doing an act forbidden or required by one's religion, or to affirm
or disavow a belief forbidden or required by one's religion, is the evil prohibited 1w the Free
Exercise Clause."). The belief or conduct must be religious in the plaintiff's own scheme of
things and must be sincerely held. See Maye, 915 F.3d at 1083.
Courts review Free Exercise claims under both rational and strict scrutiny. See City
ofHialeah, 508 U.S. at 531. "When a challenged law is neutral and of general applicability
and has a merely 'incidental effect' on Plaintiff's religious beliefs," courts review the claim
under rational scrutiny. Resurrection Sch. r. Hertel, —4th—,2021 WL 3721475, at * 11 (6th
Cir. Aug. 23, 2021) (citing City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. at 531); accord Agudath Israel of
America v. Cuomo, 983 F.3d 620, 631 (2d Cir. 2020) (explaining that, for a free exercise
claim, a "neutral and generally applicable policy is subject only to rational-basis review");
Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery Cty. Council, 706 F.3d 548,561 (4th Cir.
2013)(same). Courts apply strict scrutiny to laws that burden religious practices when the
law lacks neutrality or is not generally applicable. /lone/ova Chtiman Acad I: TOledOldiCaS
COI. Health Dep't, 984 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 2020)(quoting City ofHialeah, 508 U.S. at
546).
Discretionary denials of a request for a religious exemption to an otherwise neutral
and generally applicable policy must be reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard. See
Fulton v. City ofPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1877-78 (2021); Merirvether v.
Hartop, 992 F.3d 492,515 (6th Cir. 2012). In Fulton, our Supreme Court held that a law is
not generally applicable when it "invites the government to consider the particular reasons
for a person's conduct by providing a mechanism for individualized exemptions." 141 S. Ct.
at 1978 (cleaned up and quoting Smith,494 U.S. at 884). The provision in dispute in Fu/ton
gave the Commissioner "sole discretion" to grant an exception to an otherwise blanket
prohibition. Id. The Court applied strict scrutiny to the Free Exercise claim reasoning that
the City "may not refuse to extend that exemption system to cases of religious hardship
without compelling reason." Id. at 1878 (cleaned up and quoting Smith, 949 U.S. at 884).
When courts apply strict scrutiny to a Free Exercise claim, the law must be justified
by a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest.
Fulton 141 S. Ct. at 1181; City ofHialeah, 508 U.S. at 531-32. Narrow tailoring requires
the government to use the "least restrictive means" of achieving its goal. Roberts v. Neace,
958 F.3d 409,415 (6th Cir. 2020); see &leg- v. City ofDearborn,641 F.3d 727, 738 (6th Cir.
2011) (involving a free speech challenge and explaining that for narrow tailoring, the
"regulation must not be `substantially broader than necessary.") (quoting Ward v. Rock
Against RaCiS117, 491 U.S. 781, 800 (1989)). The government bears the burden of
establishing that its chosen course of action is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling
government interest. McGlone v. Bell, 681 F.3d 718, 734 (6th Cir. 2012)(involving a free
speech claim and explaining which party bears the burden of establishing narrow tailoring).
The Court concludes strict scrutiny applies to the \VMU's denial of Plaintiffs'
requests for religious exemptions. Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs' belief's are
religious in nature. Nor do they dispute that Plaintiffs' beliefs are sincerely held. Nor do
they dispute Plaintiffs' contention that getting a COVID-19 vaccination would violate those
sincerely held religious beliefs. By exercising discretion and denying the requested
exemptions, exemptions identified in the policy, Defendants' policy was no longer generally
applicable. Defendants' denials of the requested exemptions thus function to coerce
Plaintiffs into violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Defendants contend that the vaccine requirement is a neutral and generally applicable
policy that should be reviewed under rational scrutiny. Defendants insist that the policy is
not riddled with exceptions. The policy contains only two exceptions, religious and medical.
Defendants explain that when a student athlete fails to get a vaccination, he or she loses the
scholarship and can have no association or affiliation with the team, including participation
in intercollegiate sports. However, when a student athlete requests an accommodation,
medical or religious, and the request is granted, that student athlete will not participate in
intercollegiate sports but will maintain his or her scholarship and will continue to be listed as
a player on the team website. (Beauregard Aff. ¶ 24 PageID.336.)
The Court declines to consider whether the policy, as described by Defendants in
their brief and at the hearing, should be reviewed under rational or strict scrutiny. The policy
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-SJB ECF No. 25, PagetD.366 Filed 09/13/21 Page 8 of 13
Defendants described is not the policy Defendants sent to their student athletes and
enforced. The text message sent to student athletes did not include any criteria fbr the
consideration of exemptions. Nor did the text message explain the consequences for
granting or denying a requested exemption.' Contrary to Defendant Beauregard's affidavit,
WMU did not grant the requested exemptions and permit the student athletes to keep their
scholarships. WMU denied the requested exemptions and offered to allow the student
athletes to keep their scholarships as an alternative accommodation. On the record before
this Court, "the university's policy on accommodations was a moving target." Aferirvethet;
992 F.3d at 515. Student athletes were told that they could request a religious exemption.
When they did, Defendants denied the requests and offered an alternative or compromise
for the first time (keep the scholarship). That alternative was not identified in the "policy."
That alternative was not, disclosed on the "Religious Accommodation Request Form" until
after Plaintiffs completed the form and submitted it to Defendants. On the sparse record
before this Court, Defendants' policy appears to evolve and change in response to the
constitutional challenge from Plaintiffs and the concerns identified by the Court in the
Temporary Restraining Order.
Defendants also attempt to distinguish their policy from the one in Fulton.
Defendants explain that the denial of religious and medical exemption requests are treated
Defendants also point to a reservation of rights that all student athletes must sign, which does
state that an athlete might forfeit a scholarship. (Beauregard Aff. 1125 PageID.336.) That agreement
does not save Defendants here. Reselling the right to establish and determine codes of conduct
does not permit Defendants to impose conditions that coerce Plaintiffs into violating their religious
beliefs. Nor does the reservation of rights somehow transform the denial of a request for a religious
exemption into a generally applicable and neutral policy.
equally. Those student athletes who refuse vaccinations for either religious or medical
reasons are permitted to keep their scholarships but are not permitted to participate in team
activities. Defendants reason that religious and secular exemptions are treated the same. See
Fulton, 141 S. Ct. at 1878 (explaining that in a system of individualized exemptions, a
governmental entity may not "refuse to extend that system to cases of 'religious hardship'
without a compelling reason.")(quoting Smith, 494 U.S. at 884).
The Court is not persuaded. First, as explained above, Defendants' description of
their policy in the briefs and at the hearing differs from the language of the text message and
the manlier in which the policy was enforced. Second, as the Court interprets Fulton, the
Supreme Court has expanded the prohibition against individualized exemptions. Certainly,
Supreme Court authority pre-Fulton suggested limits on Free Exercise claims arising from a
system ofindividualized exemptions to employment situations where the governmental entity
refused to grant the exemption for religious reasons only. See Smith, 494 U.S. at 883("We
have never invalidated any governmental action on the basis of the Sherbert test except the
denial of unemployment compensation. Although we have sometimes purported to apply
the Sherbert test in contexts other than that, we have always fmind the test satisfied(.)").
Fulton describes that prohibition more broadly. Rather than being limited to discretionary
denial of exceptions for religious beliefs, a governmental policy is not generally applicable
when it contains a discretionarNT basis lbr accepting or rejecting the otherwise general rule.
"No matter the level of deference we extend to the City, the inclusion of a lbrmal system of
entirely discretionary exceptions in section 3.21 renders the contractual non-discrimination
requirement not generally applicable." Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 1t 1878. And,the Court explained
9
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-SJB ECF No. 25, PagefD.368 Filed 09/13/21 Page 10 of 13
that it is irrelevant whether any exception was ever granted. "That misapprehends the issue.
The creation of a formal mechanism for granting exceptions renders the policy not generally
applicable, regardless of whether any exceptions have been given, because it 'invites' the
government to decide which reasons for not complying with the policy are worth of
solicitude1.1" Id at 1879 (cleaned up and quoting Smith, 494 U.S. at 884).
Next, Defendants argue that the Free Exercise Clause permits individualized
consideration of requests fbr exemptions. Here, Defendants contend that a governmental
entity can consider whether the purported beliefs are religious in nature and whether the
beliefs are sincerely held. See II/Aye, 915 F.3d at 1083; Kent v.,Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220,
1224 (6th Cir. 1987). The factual determination of whether a belief is religious and sincerely
held is distinct from a discretionary decision. WMU can make a case-by-case determination
whether the request is for a legitimate reason (religious or medical), without exercising any
discretion to grant or deny the request. See, e.g, 303 Creative',LC r. Elm's,6 F.4th 1160,
1187 (10th Cir. 2021) (finding Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act to be a generally
applicable law even though it contained exceptions and distinguishing between impermissible
individualized exemptions from a. permissible "individualized adjudication"). Here, WMU
did not deny any request because it found that the Plaintiffs' beliefs were not religious or not
sincerely held.
Defendants identify their compelling interests as the health of student athletes, and
the University's reputation and finances. Defendants explain that if an intercollegiate sports
team cannot field enough players, WMU would forfeit the game. The University would
suffer financially, and its reputation would suffer. The compelling interests are not in dispute.
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PAM-SJB ECF No. 25, PagelD.369 Filed 09/13/21 Page 11 of 13
Relying on an affidavit from Dr. Gayle Ruggiero, Defendants assert that a vaccine
requirement for student. athletes is the most effective means of reducing the risk of
transmission of COVID-19 between teammates and opponents. (ECF No. 18-1 Ruggiero
Aff. ¶J 10 and 14 PageID.328.) An outbreak of COVID-19 in any particular sport would
reasonably result in forfeited games and potentially the cancellation of an entire season. (Id.
II 13 PageID.328.)
Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits of their Free Exercise
claims. On this record, Defendants have not established that the vaccine requirement fbr
student athletes is narrowly tailored. On this record, the vaccine requirement is not least
restrictive means of achieving Defendants'compelling interests. Defendants defend the most
effective means, but that is not what the law requires.
At the hearing, the parties agreed that WWI does not require vaccines !bi- students
who are not on athletic scholarship. Instead, those students who are not vaccinated must
undergo weekly testing and must quarantine after a positive result.. All students must wear
masks while indoors. The parties also agreed that student athletes will interact with non-
athlete students.
In the Court's view, Defendants have not established that policy used for non-athlete
student athletes would be ineffective to achieve Defendants'compelling interests. See United
States r. Playboy Enun't Group, Inc., 529 U.S 803, 816 (2000) ("When a plausible, less
restrictive alternative is offered to a content-based speech restriction, it is the Government's
obligation to prove that the alternative will be ineffective to achieve its goals.") (italics added).
And, "Ial court should not assume a plausible, less restrictive alternative would be
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-SJB ECF No. 25, Page1D.370 Filed 09/13/21 Page 12 of 13
ineffective(.]" Id. at 824. The different approaches taken to student athletes and non-athlete
student undermines Defendants' position that a vaccine requirement is necessary to achieve
its compelling interest. Student athletes, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated,
will interact with non-vaccinated non-athlete students. Presumably student athletes will sit
next to unvaccinated students in class, they will eat with unvaccinated students in dining halls,
they will worship with unvaccinated students, and they will socialize with unvaccinated
students both on and off campus. It is even possible that some student athletes will live with
unvaccinated students. Even if the University's mask requirement 14 indoor activities is
strictly enfbrced, the likelihood tl►at vaccinated student athletes will interact with
unvaccinated student while not wearing masks is high.
Having found a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim, the
Court need not consider the remaining three factors for a preliminary injunction.
IV.
The Court will GRANT a preliminary injunction and enjoin Defendants from
enforcing the vaccine requirement fbr student athletes during this litigation. On the record
before this Court, Defendants' denial of Plaintiffs' requests fbr religious exemptions
'Unctions to coerce the Plaintiff's to act in a manner that violates their sincerely held religious
beliefs. The denial of the requests fbr religious exemptions must be reviewed under strict
scrutiny. And, Defendants have not established that the vaccine requirement is narrowly
tailored such that it is the least restrictive means to achieve its compelling interests.
ORDER
Consistent with the above Opinion,

1. The temporary restraining order issued on August 31, 2021, is terminated;
2. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 2), which will remain
in effect during this litigation unless otherwise ordered by this Court;
3. Defendants are enjoined from entbrcing a COVID-19 vaccine requirement against
Plaintiffs. Defendants may not prevent Plaintiffs from participating in team activities fbr the
reason that Plaintiffs have not received a COVID-19 vaccine. So long as Plaintiffs have not
received a COVID-19 vaccination, Defendants may require Plaintiffs to submit to COVID-
19 testing weekly or more frequently and may also require Plaintiffs to wear face coverings
during team activities.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 13, 2021 /s/ Paul L. Malonev

Paul L. Maloney
United States Districuudge
1.3
ATTACHMENT C


OTTESON,JAKE MOERTL, KIA BROOKS, Case No. 1:21-cv-757
SIDNEY SCHAFER,DANIELLE NATTE,
SPOONER,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Defendants.
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR STAY OF INJUNCTION
**EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION REQUESTED**
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) the Defendants move for an order staying the
preliminary injunction entered in this matter on September 13, 2021, pending resolution of
the appeal that has been taken from the that Order. This motion is based on the arguments
and legal authorities contained in the Brief in Support filed with this motion.
Expedited consideration is requested to allow resolution of the issue, either in this
Court or in the Court of Appeals, as soon as possible.


BUSINESS ADDRESS:
333 Bridge Street, N.W., Suite 530
mbogren@plimkettcooney.com
0pen.07616.14299.27220587-1
2

EMILY DAHL,HANNAH REDOUTE,

SPOONER,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Defendants.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR STAY OF INJUNCTION
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grant district courts the power to stay an
injunction pending appeal:"While an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order or final
judgment that grants,continues, modifies, refuses, dissolves, or refuses to dissolve or modify
an injunction, the court may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on terms for
bond or other terms that secure the opposing party's rights." Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d).
Fed. R. App. P. 8 is entitled "Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal." That Rule states in
part:
(a) Motion for Stay.
(1) Initial Motion in the District Court. A party must ordinarily move first in the
district court for the following relief:
(A)a stay of the judgment or order of a district court pending appeal;
(B)approval of a bond or other security provided to obtain a stay ofjudgment; or
(C) an order suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting an injunction while an
appeal is pending.
The Defendants intend to file in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals a motion to stay or
suspend the preliminary injunction issued on September 13, 2021 if this court denies the
motion. In order to file that motion, Rule 8(a) requires the motion first be brought in the
district court.The Defendants acknowledge it is extraordinarily unlikely this Court will grant
this motion, since it VERY recently ruled the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits
of their Free Exercise claim. However, Rule 8 requires the motion to be presented to this
Court in the first instance.
STANDARD
In deciding whether to issue a stay under Rule 62(d), the Court must consider the
same factors analyzed when issuing injunctive relief:
(1) whether the defendant has a strong or substantial likelihood of success

on the merits; (2) whether the defendant will suffer irreparable harm if the
district court proceedings are not stayed; (3) whether staying the district
court proceedings will substantially injure other interested parties; and (4)
where the public interest lies.
Baker v. Adams County/Ohio Valley School Bd., 310 F.3d 927, 928 (6th Cir.
2002). As with injunctive relief, the factors must be balanced, and the
"strength of the likelihood of success on the merits that needs to be
demonstrated is inversely proportional to the amount of irreparable harm
2
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S313 ECF No. 34, Pagel D.396 Filed 09/22/21 Page 3 of 14
that will be suffered if a stay does not issue." Id. Importantly, to justify a stay,
the defendant "must demonstrate at least serious questions going to the
merits and irreparable harm that decidedly outweighs the harm that will be
inflicted on others if a stay is granted." Id.
League of lndep. Fitness Facilities & Trainers, Inc. v. Whitmer, No. 1:20-CV-458, 2020 WL
3422586, at *1 (W.D. Mich. June 22, 2020).
ARGUMENT
I. THE COURT SHOULD STAY THE INJUNCTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF

THE APPEAL AS RATIONAL BASIS SHOULD APPLY AND THE DEFENDANTS
ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS.
Procedurally, the case is in an awkward posture. The Court has very recently issued
a preliminary injunction, ruling strict scrutiny applies to the Plaintiffs' Free Exercise claim
and finding the Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of that claim. In order to obtain a
stay of the injunction the Defendants must demonstrate they are likely to prevail in their
appeal of the Court's decision to grant the preliminary injunction. In order to make that
showing,the Defendants must argue - in the first instance to this Court- that the Court"used
an erroneous legal standard," DV Diamond Club of Flint, LLC v. Small Bus. Admin., 960 F.3d
743, 746 (6th Cir. 2020)(cleaned up), in granting the injunction. While this may appear to
be a disguised motion for reconsideration, it is not. Fed. R. App. P. 8(a) requires this motion
to be filed in this Court in the first instance. In order to preserve the arguments for
consideration by the Court of Appeals (in the event this Court denies the motion) they must
be made in this motion.
A. The Court employed an erroneous legal standard in granting the injunction
and the Defendants are likely to prevail when the correct standard is
applied.
3
Case 1:21-ov-00757-P LM-SJB ECF No. 34, PageID.397 Filed 09/22/21 Page 4 of 14
The Court ruled that the Defendants' vaccination policy was subject to strict scrutiny:
"By exercising discretion and denying the requested exemptions, exemptions identified in
the policy, Defendants' policy was no longer generally applicable. Defendants' denial of the
requested religious exemptions thus function to coerce Plaintiffs into violating their
sincerely held religious beliefs." (ECF No. 25, PageID 365). Respectfully, strict scrutiny
should not be applied. Rational basis review is the appropriate standard to apply to WMU's
policy.
First, the allegations and exhibits in the original Complaint demonstrate the Plaintiffs
were granted a religious exemption from the vaccination requirement. It was their
requested accommodation that was denied - that they be allowed to continue participating
in team activities while unvaccinated. Paragraph 29 ofthe original Complaint alleges WMU's
vaccination policy required Plaintiffs "to take one of the Covid-19 vaccines by August 31,
2021, or be removed from their positions" on the WMU athletic teams "and lose their right
to participate in intercollegiate athletics."(ECF No. 1, PagelD 6,I 29)(emphasis added). The
exhibits to the Complaint demonstrate the Plaintiffs were not required to be vaccinated, but
if unvaccinated they would: (1) maintain their scholarship for 2021-2022; (2) could not
participate in intercollegiate sports; and (3) must comply with testing and masking
mandates. (See, e.g., ECF No. 1-2, PageID 23).1 The Plaintiffs never allege they have been
1 WMU's responses to the Plaintiffs' request for religious exemption are dated August 30,
2021, the same date the Plaintiffs' original Complaint was filed and prior to the Court's
issuance of the ex-parte TRO. The affidavits submitted in opposition to the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction did not change the original decisions on the requests for religious
exemption in any way, nor did they alter the original policy announced by Athletic Director
Beauregard. The Defendants respectfully disagree that the policy was "a moving target" or
that it "evolve[d] and change[d]" in response to the Plaintiffs' constitutional challenge or the
Court's TRO.(ECF No. 25,PageID 366).
4
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-SJB ECF No. 34, PagefD.398 Filed 09/22/21 Page 5 of 14
vaccinated against their will, because they have not been vaccinated against their will. Their
complaint is not that they were required to be vaccinated, but that the exemption from
vaccination did not include the accommodation they demanded: participation in team events
while unvaccinated. Thus, the record does not support the conclusion that the Plaintiffs'
request for a religious exemption was denied.
The Court's ruling that the denial of the Plaintiffs' requested accommodation
functioned to coerce them into violating their sincerely held religious beliefs is also based on
an erroneous standard. The Court implicitly ruled that participation in intercollegiate
athletics can form the basis of the claim of coercion, as the Plaintiffs have not alleged the
denial ofany other benefit. However,Plaintiffs have conceded participation in intercollegiate
athletics is not a constitutionally protected interest."While Plaintiffs certainly do not have a
fundamental constitutional right to be on an intercollegiate sports team, they do have the
right to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, and they do have a benefit
and privilege of being on WMU's athletic teams."(ECF No. 21, PagelD 349). It is presumably
the last portion of this statement that the Court accepted in ruling the Plaintiffs were subject
to forbidden coercion. But a "benefit and privilege of being on WMU's athletic teams" is not
what the Free Exercise clause protects.
The Free Exercise clause protects against forcing one to choose between violating a
sincerely held religious belief or foregoing a generally available benefit. This is the basis
for numerous Supreme Court decisions. For example, in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery
Protective Ass'n,485 U.S. 439,449(1988),the Supreme Court rejected a Free Exercise claim
brought by a Native American organization challenging the construction of a road through
sacred ground:
5
The building of a road or the harvesting of timber on publicly owned land

cannot meaningfully be distinguished from the use of a Social Security number
in Roy. In both cases, the challenged Government action would interfere
significantly with private persons' ability to pursue spiritual fulfillment
according to their own religious beliefs. In neither case, however, would the
affected individuals be coerced by the Government's action into violating their
religious beliefs; nor would either governmental action penalize religious
activity by denying any person an equal share of the rights, benefits, and
privileges enjoyed by other citizens.
Id. at 449(emphasis added). In Hobbie v. UnemploymentAppeals Comm'n ofFla.,480 U.S. 136,
(1987), Thomas v. Review Board,Indiana EmploymentSecurity Div., 450 U.S. 707(1981),and
Sherbert v. Verner,374 U.S. 398(1963),the Supreme Court recognized viable coercion claims
under the Free Exercise clause where the plaintiffs' eligibility for unemployment benefits -
a generally available benefit - was conditioned on agreeing to be available to work at a time
or in a place that would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court applied this same rationale when it sustained a Free Exercise
challenge to a Montana law that prohibited parents from using a state funded stipend at
religious schools."Here too Montana's no-aid provision bars religious schools from public
benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools. The provision also bars
parents who wish to send their children to a religious school from those same benefits, again
solely because ofthe religious character ofthe school." Espinoza v. Montana Dep't ofRevenue,
140 S. Ct. 2246,2255(2020). In Trinity Lutheran Church ofColumbia,Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct.
2012(2017),the Supreme Court again identified the denial of a "generally available benefit"
as triggering the Free Exercise violation:"... this Court has repeatedly confirmed that denying
a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the
free exercise of religion that can be justified only by a state interest 'of the highest order.-
6
Id. at 2019. The Sixth Circuit favorably cited a Third Circuit case making the same point in
discussing a RLUIPA claim: "see also Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272, 280 (3d Cir. 2007)
("For the purposes of RLUIPA, a substantial burden exists where: 1) a follower is forced to
choose between following the precepts of his religion and forfeiting benefits otherwise
generally available to other inmates versus abandoning one of the precepts of his religion in
order to receive a benefit;" Living Water Church of God v. Charter Twp. of Meridian, 258 F.
App'x 729,736(6th Cir. 2007). Citing Trinity Lutheran,the D.C. Circuit has also plainly stated:
"Of course, WMATA may not target religious speakers for exclusion from a generally
available benefit." Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 897
F.3d 314,332(D.C. Cir. 2018). In Locke v. Davey,540 U.S. 712,726-727(2004), Justice Scalia
stated in dissent: "When the State makes a public benefit generally available, that benefit
becomes part ofthe baseline against which burdens on religion are measured; and when the
State withholds that benefit from some individuals solely on the basis of religion, it violates
the Free Exercise Clause no less than if it had imposed a special tax." Id. at 726 - 727. That
statement was repeated in Justice Rehnquist's majority opinion without disagreement, but
was distinguished on the facts of the case:
Justice SCALIA argues, however, that generally available benefits are part of
the "baseline against which burdens on religion are measured." Post, at 1316
(dissenting opinion). Because the Promise Scholarship Program funds training
for all secular professions, Justice SCALIA contends the State must also fund
training for religious professions. See ibid. But training for religious
professions and training for secular professions are not fungible. Training
someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor. Indeed,
majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an
academic pursuit.
7
Id. at 721. In this case the Plaintiffs have not been coerced into giving up a generally available
benefit. Participation in intercollegiate athletics is not a generally available benefit and is not
a constitutionally protected right. Karmanos v. Baker, 816 F.2d 258, 260 (6th Cir. 1987);
Graham v. NCAA, 804 F.2d 953, 959 n. 2 (6th Cir. 1986); Hamilton v. Tennessee Secondary
School Athletic Association, 552 F.2d 681,682 (6th Cir. 1976). Since Plaintiffs have not been
put to the choice of forfeiting either a generally available benefit or a constitutionally
protected interest,there is no basis for employing strict scrutiny based on a coercion theory.
The WMU policy is neutral toward religion and generally applicable and therefore
strict scrutiny is not the appropriate standard of review. The Court relied on the Supreme
Court's recent decision in Fulton v. City ofPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868(2021),
stating:
Second, as the Court interprets Fulton, the Supreme Court has expanded the
prohibition against individualized exemptions. Certainly, Supreme Court
authority pre-Fulton suggested limits on Free Exercise claims arising from a
system of individualized exemptions to employment situations where the
governmental entity refused to grant the exemption for religious reasons only.
See Smith, 494 U.S. at 883 ("We have never invalidated any governmental
action on the basis of the Sherbert test except the denial of unemployment
compensation. Although we have sometimes purported to apply the Sherbert
test in contexts other than that, we have always found the test satisfied[.]").
Fulton describes that prohibition more broadly. Rather than being limited to
discretionary denial of exceptions for religious beliefs, a governmental policy
is not generally applicable when it contains a discretionary basis for accepting
or rejecting the otherwise general rule.
(ECF No. 25, PagelD 367). The Defendants respectfully disagree with that reading of Fulton.
The policy found constitutionally invalid in Fulton suffered from the same infirmities as
those struck down in the unemployment cases. The policies allowed discretionary secular
8
Case 1:21-ov-00757-PAM-SJB ECF No. 34, Pagel D.402 Filed 09/22/21 Page 9 of 14
exemptions while refusing to consider religious exemptions. The Court explicitly made this
point in Fulton:
"Like the good cause provision in Sherbert, section 3.21 incorporates a system
of individual exemptions, made available in this case at the "sole discretion" of
the Commissioner. The City has made clear that the Commissioner "has no
intention of granting an [religious] exception" to CSS. App. to Pet. for Cert.
168a. But the City "may not refuse to extend that [exemption]system to cases
of'religious hardship' without compelling reason." Smith,494 U.S. at 884, 110
S.Ct. 1595 (quoting Roy,476 U.S. at 708, 106 S.Ct. 2147).
Fulton, 141 S. Ct. at 1878. Fulton did not expand the prohibition against individualized
exemptions. It relied on the Sherbert and Smith decisions which the Court found controlled
the outcome.
The Court also gave no weight to the fact that the medical exemption and the religious
exemption are treated identically by WMU. The facts of this case are completely dissimilar
to the facts of Fulton, Smith, and Sherbert, where secular exemptions were entrusted to the
unfettered discretion of the decisionmaker, but no religious exemptions were even
entertained. Here there is a single secular exemption and a religious exemption. Both operate
in the same fashion and are implemented in the same way. It is difficult to conceive of how
the WMU policy could be more "neutral and generally applicable."
The Court also drew a distinction between impermissible individualized exemptions
and permissible individualized adjudication, citing 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 6 F.4th 1160
(10th Cir. 2021),a case that rejected the plaintiffs argument that strict scrutiny applied."The
Dissent is correct that Colorado 'has the burden to establish that the challenged law satisfies
strict scrutiny.' Dissent at 1209 n.15 (quoting Tandon, 141 S. Ct. at 1296 (per curiam)). But
that burden is irrelevant here because strict scrutiny does not apply to Appellants' Free
9
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-SJB ECF No. 34, Pagel D.403 Filed 09/22/21 Page 10 of 14
Exercise claims." Id. at 1186, n. 8. The 10th Circuit majority opinion actually supports WMU's
position:
"[A] system of individualized exemptions is one that gives rise to the

application of a subjective test." Axson-Flynn, 356 F.3d at 1297 (internal
quotation omitted). Conversely, an exemption is not "individualized" simply
because it "contain[s] express exceptions for objectively defined categories of
persons." Id. at 1298. As we explained in Axson-Flynn, "[w]hile of course it
takes some degree of individualized inquiry to determine whether a
person is eligible for even a strictly defined exemption, that kind of
limited yes-or-no inquiry is qualitatively different from the kind of case-
by-case system envisioned by the Smith Court in its discussion of
Sherbert and related cases." Id.
The Dissent's discussion of the individualized exemption exception conflates

an "individualized exemption" with "individualized adjudication." For
example, the Dissent concludes that the individualized exemption exception
should apply because "the entire CADA enforcement mechanism is structured
to make case-by-case determinations." Dissent at 1207-08;see also id. at 1211
("By demonstrating that CADA sets up a case-by-case system for determining
exceptions, Ms. Smith has shown CADA's application here must be reviewed
with strict scrutiny with regard to the free exercise claims."). Accordingly,
CADA does not grant "individualized exemptions" simply because
causation is determined by the specific facts of each case. Were we to
conclude otherwise, a wide range of criminal statutes would also become
subject to Free Exercise challenges because courts adjudicate a defendant's
guilt through "case-by-case determinations."
Elenis,6 F.4th at 1187(emphasis added).The record before the Court establishes that a "yes
or no" decision was made as to whether the Plaintiffs' request for a religious exemption was
based on sincerely held religious beliefs. That question was answered in the affirmative for
each Plaintiff, and each received an exemption from the vaccination requirement. What they
did not receive was their desired accommodation: to continue to participate in the athletic
program while unvaccinated. There is no evidence in the record - nor any allegations in the
Complaint - that the medical exemption has been administered in a different fashion than
10
the religious exemption, or that any other unvaccinated student athletes have been
permitted to pa ticipate in any team events in contravention of WMU's policy.
The Court stated: "Student athletes were told that they could request a religious
exemption. When they did, Defendants denied the requests and offered an alternative or
compromise for the first time (keep the scholarship). That alternative was not identified in
the 'policy.' That alternative was not disclosed on the 'Religious Accommodation Request
Form' until after Plaintiffs completed the form and submitted it to Defendants."(ECF No. 25.
PagelD 366). But it is not clear why that impacts whether strict scrutiny applies or why the
policy runs afoul of the Free Exercise clause. No Plaintiff has alleged she or he would have
acted any differently had the original announcement of the policy included the information
the Court identifies as missing. No Plaintiff has alleged she or he received the vaccination
under duress and would have refrained from doing so if they knew they would have kept
their scholarship without receiving the vaccination. Simply stated, nothing is different now
than it would have been had the "missing" information been included in the original
announcement.
The Defendants submit that the Sixth Circuit's decision in Resurrection School v.
Hertel, 11 F.4th 437 (6th Cir. 2021) controls this case. There, the Sixth Circuit held: "In the
present case, the district court applied Beshear and correctly concluded that because the
requirement to wear a facial covering applied to students in grades K-5 at both religious and
non-religious schools, it was neutral and of general applicability." Even though the
challenged policy had twelve secular exemptions,the Sixth Circuit ruled the policies "are not
so riddled with secular exceptions as to fail to be neutral and generally applicable. The
exceptions to the MDHHS Orders were narrow and discrete." Id. The same result should
11
follow here. There are two discrete exemptions, one medical and one religious. They are
administered in the same manner and have the same results when recognized. This is a
neutral policy of general applicability to which rational basis review should apply.
WMU's policy passes constitutional muster under rational basis review. The policy is
rationally related to legitimate governmental purpose. Indeed, the Court recognized WMU
had a compelling interest in protecting its student athletes and athletic programs from the
Covid-19 pandemic."The compelling interests are not in dispute."(ECF No. 25, PagelD 368).
The Court also implicitly recognized that the vaccination policy was rationally related to
accomplishing that interest when it ruled that the masking and testing alternative had not
been shown to be ineffective.(Id. at PagelD 369 - 370). No court has ruled that a vaccination
policy is not rationally related to the goal ofslowing the spread of Covid-19.
B. The other three factors favor staying the injunction.
1. Irreparable harm.
The Defendants cannot state with certainty that they will suffer irreparable if the
injunction is not stayed, but WMU is at greater risk of irreparable than the Plaintiffs. As
described in Ms. Beauregard's affidavit, a Covid-19 outbreak could jeopardize a team's entire
season. And the fact that no vaccine is 100% efficacious or that vaccinated people can
contract Covid-19 does not cut against WMU's policy. The vaccine is the best available
response to the pandemic. Unvaccinated people are more likely to contract and spread the
virus than vaccinated people. If vaccinated people contract Covid-19, their symptoms are
likely to be less severe. None of those facts, however, will ameliorate the effect of a Covid
outbreak. Athletes will have to be quarantined and games and seasons are potentially at risk.
2. Injury to other interested parties.
12
The other student athletes participating in WMU's athletic program are potentially at
risk of contracting a deadly disease when they must compete with unvaccinated teammates.
While they might be exposed to unvaccinated individuals in other aspects of their lives, the
physical nature ofthe competitive sports, the physical proximity, and the length of exposure
is significantly greater in the team setting.
The Supreme Court stated in a different context that "while the Constitution protects
against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact." Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez,
372 U.S. 144, 160 (1963). While the Plaintiffs' right to the free exercise of religion is
unquestioned, how far does it go? Clearly participation in intercollegiate athletics is not part
of the exercise of religion, nor do any ofthe Plaintiffs suggest that it is. Plaintiffs are not being
vaccinated against their will. The WMU policy - before it was enjoined by the Court -
required them to cease participation in team events if they received a medical or religious
exemption from the vaccination requirement. Why does the Plaintiffs' desire to participate
while unvaccinated supersede their vaccinated teammates' right not to be unnecessarily
exposed to a potentially deadly disease? At bottom that is what the Plaintiffs assert: their
religious beliefs immunize them from WMU's vaccination requirement and grant them a
license to expose their teammates to the Covid-19 virus. The Free Exercise clause does not
compel that result.
3. Public interest.
The legislative response to the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrates that the political
branches have clearly announced the necessity for vaccines to protect public health.
Congress has appropriated tens of billions of dollars for the development and distribution of
a COVID-19 vaccine. See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 116-260,Division M (2020). Other federal programs
13
established by the political branches likewise encourage vaccination to promote public
health. See, e.g., Vaccines for Children Program (VFC), available at
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/index.html. ("The Vaccines For Children
(VFC) program is a federally funded program that provides vaccines at no cost to children
who might not otherwise be vaccinated because ofinability to pay."). Such programs indicate
legislative judgments that vaccines promote public health. And respected private national
medical organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics likewise encourage
vaccination. See American Academy of Pediatrics, Immunizations, Immunization Schedules,
available at https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-
initiatives/immunizations/Pages/Immunization-Schedule.aspx The public interest,
therefore, does not favor continuing the injunctive relief.
RELIEF REQUESTED
The Defendants respectfully request the Court stay the Preliminary Injunction
entered on September 13, 2021 pending resolution of the appeal.

BUSINESS ADDRESS:
mbogreaPplunkettcooney.com
Open.07616.14299.27216437-1
14
ATTACHMENT D

SOUTHERN DIVISION
EMILY DAHL,et al, )

Plaintiff, )
) No. 1:21-cv-757
-v- )
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WESTERN )
MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, et al, )
Defendant. )
)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY
This Court issued a preliminary injunction against Defendants enjoining them from
enforcing a vaccine mandate against the student athletes who filed the lawsuit. Defendants
filed an appeal of the preliminary injunction. Defendants now ask the Court to stay the
injunction. (ECF No. 33.)
Rule 62(d) authorizes a district court to suspend a preliminary injunction while an
appeal of that order is pending. In deciding whether to suspend the preliminary injunction,
courts consider the same factors they considered when issuing the preliminary injunction:(1)
whether the defendant has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the
defendant will suffer irreparable harm if the proceedings are not stayed; (3) whether the
proceedings will substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) the public's interest.
Baker v. Adams Cty./Ohio Valley Sch. 11(1., 310 F.3d 927, 928 (6th Cir. 2002). The Court
balances the fbur factors. Id.
The Court finds that Defendants have not established a likelihood of success on the
merits. The dispute concerns the appropriate level of scrutiny. The Court concluded that
strict scrutiny applies to Plaintiffs' religious freedom claim. Defendants insist that rational
scrutiny applies. The Court has carefully considered the arguments presented in
Defendants' brief and reaches the same conclusion as before, strict scrutiny applies. The
Court disagrees with Defendants' characterization of the record and with Defendants'
interpretation of the relevant legal authority.
With the conclusion that Defendants have not demonstrated a likelihood of success
on the merits of Plaintiffs' constitutional claims, the balance of the factors weigh against
granting a stay. Because Plaintiffs' have a likelihood of success in their constitutional claim,
that factor becomes determinative. See Thompson v DeiVine,976 F.3d 610,615 (6th Cir.
2020)(citation omitted).
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to stay the injunction.
(ECF No. 33). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 23, 2021 /s/ Paul L. Maloney

Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
ATTACHMENT E


SPOONER,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Defendants.
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
The Defendants move for an order staying proceedings in this matter pending
resolution of the appeal that has been taken from the Court's Opinion and Order Granting a
Preliminary Injunction issued and filed September 13, 2021. This motion is based on the
arguments and legal authorities in the Brief in Support filed with this motion.
The Defendants request expedited consideration of this motion pursuant to L. R.
7.1(e), as the Defendants' response to the Amended Complaint will be due before the appeal
will be decided, rendering the request for Stay of Proceedings moot.

DATED September 20, 2021 PLUNKETT COONEY

BUSINESS ADDRESS:
mbogrenPpiunkettcooney.com
0pen.07616.14299.27183006-1
2


OTTESON,JAKE MOERTL,KIA BROOKS, Case No. 1:21-cv-757
SPOONER,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Defendants.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The original Complaint (ECF No. 1) in this matter was filed on August 30, 2021 on
behalf of Plaintiffs Dahl, Redoute, Korhorn,and Otteson. A Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Brief in Support were filed with the Complaint.(ECF No. 2, 2-1).
This Court issued an Order granting the TRO on August 31, 2021 (ECF No. 7)and an
Amended Order granting the TRO the same day (ECF No. 8). In that Order the Court set a
hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction for September 9, 2021.(Id.) On September
3, 2021 the parties filed a stipulation to allow the filing of an Amended Complaint naming
twelve additional Plaintiffs.(ECF No. 16). The parties also stipulated that the TRO would
apply to the additional Plaintiffs pending the outcome of the hearing on September 9, 2021.
(Id.) The Court entered an Order granting the stipulation to file an amended Complaint and
extending the TRO to the added Plaintiffs on September 3, 2021.(ECF No. 20). The Amended
Complaint was accepted for filing the same date.(ECF No. 15). Counsel for the Defendants
filed an acceptance of service for all named Defendants on September 9, 2021.(ECF No. 22).
The Court held the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on September 9,
2021. After hearing argument from the parties, the Court stated it would grant the request
for a preliminary injunction and would continue the TRO pending issuance of a written
opinion and order. On September 13, 2021 the Court issued and filed an Opinion and Order
granting the preliminary injunction.(ECF. No. 25).
On September 17, 2021 the Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal from the September
13, 2021 Opinion and Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) which gives the Court of
Appeals jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders of the district courts granting or
continuing injunctions.
ARGUMENT
I The Court should stay proceedings pending resolution of the appeal from
the September 13,2021 Order granting the preliminary injunction.
The notice ofappeal divests the district court ofjurisdiction and transfers jurisdiction
to the Court of Appeals. The district court only retains jurisdiction to proceed with matters
that are in aid of the appeal. Inland Bulk Transfer Co. v. Cummins Engine Co., 332 F.3d 1007,
1013 (6th Cir. 2003); Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Dep't of Natural
Resources, 71 F.3d 1197, 1203 (6th Cir. 1995). "Ordinarily, the district court is divested of
2
jurisdiction in a case when one or more ofthe parties files a notice of appeal." Weaver v. Univ.
ofCincinnati,970 F.2d 1523,1528(6th Cir. 1992).
"Because the district court's denial of Martin immunity to the State Defendants was
immediately appealable, the district court lost jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state-law
claims against the State Defendants once the State Defendants filed their notice of appeal.
See Lewis v. Alexander, 987 F.2d 392, 394 (6th Cir. 1993)." Brent v. Wayne County Dep't of
Human Services, 901 F.3d 656,692(6th Cir. 2018). The Sixth Circuit explained:
The district court concluded otherwise, reasoning that this court had already
affirmed the district court's predecessor's decision to deny the State
Defendants absolute immunity. See R. 264 (Order at 4 n.1)(Page ID #5671).
While true that "the district court retains jurisdiction over an action when an
'appeal is untimely, is an appeal from a non-appealable non-final order, or
raises only issues that were previously ruled upon in that case by the appellate
court,'" Lewis,987 F.2d at 394-95 (quoting Rucker v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 798
F.2d 891, 892 (6th Cir. 1986) ), the district court erred in holding that this
court had already decided that the State Defendants were not entitled to
immunity under Martin. We previously held that the State Defendants were
not entitled to governmental immunity under the GTLA or Odom. Brent, 555
F. App'x at 535. We never considered, however, whether the State Defendants
were entitled to absolute immunity under Martin. The district court
therefore had no power to revisit the claims that were pending before
this court on appeal.
Id.(Emphasis added).
In Jennings v. Fuller, 659 F. App'x 867,868(6th Cir. 2016), a case involving an
appeal from the denial of qualified immunity,the Sixth Circuit reiterated the rule and
criticized the district court's decision to continue the proceedings during the appeal:
Further, when a party files an interlocutory appeal, the district court is

generally divested ofjurisdiction, putting the underlying case on pause
while the appeal is being resolved.See Lewis v. Alexander,987 F.2d 392,
394(6th Cir. 1993). Here, however, the district court took the unusual
step of proceeding apace after concluding that the appeal was frivolous,
3
stating that, because it "made clear that it [denied the motion for
summary judgment] because of factual disputes in the record.... it
firmly believe[d] that ... the appeal d[id] not present a pure legal issue"
and that we would therefore dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
This conclusion was only half right, and not for the reasons the district
court expressed.
Id. at 868.
The Sixth Circuit in Weaver v. Univ. ofCincinnati, supra, acknowledged that an appeal
does not divest the district court of jurisdiction over issues not implicated in the appeal:
"There is authority, however, which holds that an appeal from an interlocutory order does
not divest the trial court ofjurisdiction to continue deciding other issues involved in the case.
See Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379(1985)(citing
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam)); NLRB v.
Cincinnati Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585,588(6th Cir. 1987)." Weaver, supra, at 1528.
While the Plaintiffs have asserted additional claims in the Amended Complaint, all
arise out of the core issue the Court ruled on in granting the preliminary injunction and that
the Defendants are appealing - WMU's vaccination policy and the religious exemption
claimed by the Plaintiffs. Because there are independent defenses to the remaining claims
that will be asserted in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the case is not stayed, it would be a waste of
judicial resources and the parties' resources to allow the case to proceed before the appeal is
decided. The specific claims are corresponding defenses are as follows.
Count II of the Amended Complaint asserts a claim for a substantive due process
violation. In order to succeed on this claim the Plaintiffs must demonstrate(1)the deprivation
of a protected liberty interest(2)by conduct that shocks the conscience. Guertin v. State,912
4
F.3d 907,922(6th Cir. 2019).The Plaintiffs can show neither. Plaintiffs were not involuntarily
vaccinated,so they have not been deprived of a liberty interest. The WMU vaccination policy
does not shock the conscience as a matter of law.
Count III alleges a violation of Title II, which prohibits discrimination in places of
public accommodation.First,Title II does not apply to a university vis-à-vis its athletes. Unlike
the Americans with Disabilities Act which explicitly includes colleges and universities as
places of public accommodation (See 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(J)), Title II does not include
educational institutions within the definition of a place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. §
2000a(b). But more basically, Plaintiffs have failed to meet the notice requirements ofthe Act.
42 U.S.C. 2000a-3(a) allows a civil action "for preventive relief." But before such an action is
brought the requirements of 42 U.S.C.§ 2000a-3(c) must be satisfied. That section of the Act
states:
In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this subchapter which

occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local
law prohibiting such act or practice and establishing or authorizing a
State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to
institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice
thereof, no civil action may be brought under subsection (a) before the
expiration of thirty days after written notice of such alleged act or
practice has been given to the appropriate State or local authority by
registered mail or in person, provided that the court may stay proceedings in
such civil action pending the termination of State or local enforcement
proceedings.
(Emphasis added). The Plaintiffs have included a claim under the Michigan Civil Rights Act
alleging they have been denied access to a place of public accommodation. M.C.L. 37.2101,
et. seq.(ECF No. 1, Count V). There can be no dispute that Michigan has a law prohibiting the
allegedly wrongful practice. Therefore, Plaintiffs were required to satisfy the notice
5
requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(c) before bringing this claim. The Plaintiffs have not
alleged they have satisfied the notice requirement and there is no evidence in the record they
have done so. Count III is therefore subject to dismissal under Rule 12.
The Plaintiffs are seeking nominal damages and injunctive relief under the Michigan
Civil Rights Act and the Michigan Constitution in Counts IV and V. Putting aside the issue of
the merits of the Plaintiffs' state law claims, the Eleventh Amendment bars the injunctive
relief the Plaintiffs seek."As the Court wrote in Pennhurst,'it is difficult to think of a greater
intrusion on state sovereignty than when a federal court instructs state officials on how to
conform their conduct to state law.' 465 U.S. at 106." Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner, 543
F.3d 357,361 (6th Cir. 2008)(citing PennhurstState School & Hospital v. Halderman,465 U.S.
89,124-125 (1984)).
The Plaintiffs' claims for nominal damages for alleged violations of state law are also
barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351, 368 (6th Cir. 2005)(en
Banc) ("[T]he states' constitutional immunity from suit prohibits all state-law claims filed
against a [*ate in federal court, whether those claims are monetary or injunctive in
nature."); Turker v. Ohio Dep't ofRehab. & Corr., 157 F.3d 453,456-457(6th Cir. 1998)("It is.
... well-established that a federal court cannot entertain a lawsuit against state officials for
violations of state law unless the state has waived its immunity under the Eleventh
Amendment. Ohio has not waived that immunity."
The Plaintiffs' claims for nominal damages under Counts I and II fail because the state
(including arms of the state such as WMU)are not "persons" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983."We
have held, however, that § 1983 actions do not lie against a State. Will v. Michigan Dept. of
State Police,491 U.S. 58,71(1989).Thus,the claim for reliefthe Ninth Circuit found sufficient
6
to overcome mootness was nonexistent. The barrier was not, as the Ninth Circuit supposed,
Eleventh Amendment immunity, which the State could waive. The stopper was that § 1983
creates no remedy against a State." Arizonansfor Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43,69
(1997).
The point of the foregoing discussion is that a denial of a request to stay proceedings
will result in additional legal challenges to the sufficiency of the remaining claims in the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. The Defendants submit that awaiting a ruling on the appeal
will better serve the parties and the Court in terms of the expenditure oftime and resources.
Moreover, if discovery proceeds on the remaining claims it will likely have to be repeated if
the Plaintiffs' Free Exercise claim survives on appeal.Such a scenario is a recipe for needless
duplication, waste,and expense. The Defendants submit the better course of action is to stay
the proceedings pending the Sixth Circuit's ruling on the appeal.
RELIEF REQUESTED
The Defendants request the Court enter an order staying further proceedings until
the Sixth Circuit issues its decision on the appeal from the Court's Order granting the
preliminary injunction.
DATED:September 20, 2021 PLUNKETT COONEY

BUSINESS ADDRESS:
mbogren0c6plunkettcooney.com
Open.07616.14299.27189511-1
7
ATTACHMENT F

SOUTHERN DIVISION
EMILY DAHL,et al, )

Plaintiffs, )
) No. 1:21-cv-757
-v- )
MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, et aL, )
Defendants. )
)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXTENDING

DEADLINE FOR FILING ANSWER
Defendants appealed this Court's order granting a preliminary injunction, which
prevents Defendants from enfbrcing its vaccine mandate 14 student athletes. Defendants
now request a stay of the proceedings while their appeal is pending. (ECF No. 28.)
Defendants assert that their appeal deprives this Court ofjurisdiction over Count 1 in
the complaint, but not over any of the other claims. Defendants intend to challenge the legal
sufficiency of many of the remaining claims. Defendants conclude that waiting until the
circuit court resolves the appeal would be a better use of the Court's and the parties' time
and expenses.
The other claims asserted by Plaintiffs in the complaint will need to be addressed
almost without regard to how the circuit court resolves the religious freedom claim that is the
basis for the preliminary injunction. Defendants'concerns about discovery can be addressed
after Defendants file either their answer to the complaint or their Rule 12(b) motion.
Accordingly,The Court DENIES Defendants' request fOr a stay. (ECF No. 28.) The
Court, however, will extend the deadline by fourteen days for Defendants to file their
responsive pleading under Rule 12(a) or a motion under Rule 1 2(b). Defendants' answer to
the amended complaint is now due on Friday, October 8, 2021. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 21, 2021 /s/ Paul L. Maloney

Paul L. Maloney
United States Districtjudge
ATTACHMENT G
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLIV. JB ECF No. 15, PagelD.148 Filed /03/21 Page 1 of 30
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EMILY DAHL,HANNAH REDOUTE, FIRST AMENDED

BAILEY KORHORN,MORGAN VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
OTTESON,JAKE MOERTL,MA TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
BROOKS, AUBREE ENSIGN,REILLY ORDER,PRELIMINARY AND
JACOBSON,TAYLOR WILLIAMS, PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE
KAELYN PARKER, ANNALISE JAMES, RELIEF,DECLARATORY
MAXWELL HUNTLEY,SYDNEY SCHAFER, RELIEF
DANIELLE NATTE,NICOLE MOREHOUSE,
and KATELYN SPOONER, CASE NO.:1:21-cv-757
Plaintiffs, HON.:PAUL L. MALONEY
-vs-
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WESTERN

MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY; EDWARD
MONTGOMERY,President of WMU;KATHY
BEAUREGARD, WMU Athletic Director; and
TAMMY L. MILLER, Associate Director
of Institutional Equity,
Defendants.
David A. Kallman (P34200) Michael S. Bogren (P34835)

Stephen P. Kallman (P75622) PLUNKETT COONEY
Erin E. Mersino (P70886) Attorney for Defendants
Jack C. Jordan (P46551) 333 Bridge St. NW,Ste. 530
GREAT LAKES JUSTICE CENTER Bridgewater Place
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Grand Rapids, MI 49504
5600 W. Mount Hope Hwy. (269)901-9040
Lansing, MI 48917
(517)322-3207
Now COME the above-named Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, and
together bring this First Amended Verified Complaint against the above-named Defendants, their
employees, agents, and successors in office, and in support thereof allege the following upon
information and belief:

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM ECF No. 15, PagelD.149 Filed J03/21 Page 2 of 30
INTRODUCTION
1. This case seeks to protect and vindicate statutory, and fundamental constitutional
rights. Plaintiffs bring a civil rights action under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and for other statutory and constitutional
violations, challenging Defendants' acts, policies, practices, customs, and procedures, which
deprived Plaintiffs oftheir First Amendment rights, their right to Due Process, and their Fourteenth
Amendment liberty right to privacy, self-autonomy and personal identity, including the right to
reject government mandated medical treatment.
2. Defendants unjustly discriminate against Plaintiffs because of their sincerely held
religious beliefs and their viewpoints by mandating that they must take the Covid-19 vaccine in
order to participate on Defendants' college soccer team.
3. Specifically, Defendants' vaccine mandate seeks to override Plaintiffs' sincerely
held religious beliefs and viewpoint and discriminates against them on the basis of their religion.
4. As set forth in this Complaint, the policies, practices, customs, and procedures of
Defendants (hereinafter "WMU") were the cause of, and the moving force behind, the statutory,
and constitutional violations in this case.
5. Plaintiffs seek:
a. injunctive relief enjoining the unconstitutional application of WMU's policies,
practices, customs and procedures as set forth in this Complaint, all with a temporary
restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction;
b. a declaration that Defendants violated Plaintiffs clearly established statutory and
constitutional rights;
c. a declaration that the training, supervision, policies, practices, customs, and procedures
2
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLIV, JB ECF No. 15, PageID.150 Filet J/03/21 Page 3 of 30
of Defendants as set forth in this Complaint violate the United States Constitution and
the Michigan Constitution;
d. a finding that Defendants actions violate state and federal anti-discrimination laws;
e. an award of nominal damages; and
f. an award of their reasonable costs of litigation, including attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and other applicable law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the
State of Michigan. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Honorable Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1331
and 1343, as well as under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and other Federal
and State laws and regulations, to redress violations of federal and state statutes.
7. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article III of the United
States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a). Declaratory relief is authorized
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202.
8. This Honorable Court has supplemental jurisdiction regarding the remaining state
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
9. Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C.
§ 2201 and 2202, by Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and by the general
legal and equitable powers of this court. Plaintiffs' claims for damages are authorized under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7, and by the general legal and equitable powers of this
Honorable Court.
10. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants are located in
this District and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims
occurred in this District.
3
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PL1 JB ECF No. 15, PagelD.151 Filec ./03/21 Page 4 of 30
PLAINTIFFS
11. Plaintiff Emily Dahl is a student at Western Michigan University and is studying
Healthcare Services & Science. She is a Defender on the WMU women's soccer team and is on
athletic scholarship. Emily regularly makes the Dean's List and is an Academic All-MAC award
recipient. Emily was named Second Team All-MAC in 2020.
12. Plaintiff Hannah Redoute is a student at Western Michigan University and is
studying Accounting. She is a Forward on the WMU women's soccer team and is on athletic
scholarship. Hannah regularly makes the Dean's List and is an Academic All-MAC award
recipient.
13. Plaintiff Bailey Korhorn is a student at Western Michigan University and is
studying Accounting. She is a Center Midfielder and Team Captain on the WMU women's soccer
team and is on athletic scholarship. Bailey regularly makes the Dean's List and is an Academic
All-MAC award recipient. Bailey was awarded First Team All-MAC in 2020 which was played in
the 2021 spring season and was awarded Second Team All-MAC in 2019. Bailey was all named
to the All-Region team in 2020.
14. Plaintiff Morgan Otteson is a student at Western Michigan University and is
studying Accounting. She is a Forward and Team Captain on the WMU women's soccer team and
is on athletic scholarship. Morgan was First Team All-MAC in 2019. She also regularly makes
the Dean's List, is an Academic All-MAC award recipient, and a MAC Distinguished Scholar
Athlete. Morgan was named to the All-Region Team in 2019.
15. Plaintiff Taylor Williams is a student at Western Michigan University and is
studying Criminal Justice. She is on the WMU women's basketball team and is on athletic
scholarship.
4
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLN JB ECF No. 15, PagelD.152 Filec J/03/21 Page 5 of 30
16. Plaintiff Jake Moertl is a student at Western Michigan University and is studying
Criminal Justice. He is on the WMU men's football team and is on athletic scholarship.
17. Plaintiff Maxwell Huntley is a student at Western Michigan University and is
studying Finance. He is on the WMU men's baseball team and is on athletic scholarship.
18. Plaintiff Kaelyn Parker is a student at Western Michigan University and is studying
Music Theatre Performance. She is on the WMU dance team.
19. Plaintiff Annalise James is a student at Western Michigan University and is
studying Exercise Science. She is on the WMU cross country and track team and is on athletic
scholarship.
20. Plaintiff Reilly Jacobson is a student at Western Michigan University and is
studying Counseling. She is on the WMU women's basketball team and is on athletic scholarship.
21. Plaintiff Kia Brooks is a student at Western Michigan University and is studying
Sports Management. She is on the WMU women's basketball team and is on athletic scholarship.
22. Plaintiff Aubree Ensign is a student at Western Michigan University and is studying
Dance and Occupational Therapy. She is on the WMU dance team.
23. Plaintiff Sydney Schafer is a student at Western Michigan University and is
studying Sales and Marketing. She is on the WMU women's basketball team and is on athletic
scholarship.
24. Plaintiff Danielle Natte is a student at Western Michigan University and is studying
Dance. She is on the WMU dance team.
25. Plaintiff Nicole Morehouse is a freshman student at Western Michigan University.
She is on the WMU Cross Country team.
26. Plaintiff Katelyn Spooner is a student at Western Michigan University and is
5
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLl JB ECF No. 15, PagelD.153 Filec. i/03/21 Page 6 of 30
studying Accounting. She is on the WMU Cross Country and Track and Field teams. She is also
on scholarship.
27. Plaintiffs are Christians who adhere to the teachings of the Bible and are morally
bound to follow the universal, consistent moral teaching of the Christian faith. All Plaintiffs find
their dignity, personal identity, and autonomy in the exercise of their sincerely held Christian
religious beliefs.
28. Plaintiffs do not oppose or demean any person for the personal medical decisions
they make. Plaintiffs oppose the medical mandates now being forced upon them by Defendants,
and the resulting violation of Plaintiffs' statutory and constitutional rights.
29. Plaintiffs are devoted Christian people who sincerely believe the Bible's teachings
and sincerely hold Christian beliefs that preclude them for taking the COVID - 1 9 shot.
30. Defendants' vaccine mandate does not apply to all students at WMU. Plaintiffs are
willing to take other preventative measures, like weekly testing, masking, etc.
31. Plaintiffs sincerely believe the Bible teaches that human beings have a duty to God
to live their lives according to His Word.
32. As part of their personal identity and autonomy, Plaintiffs sincerely believe that
they have a duty and obligation to live out their faith in all areas of life, including personal medical
decisions.
33. Defendants' policies punish them for exercising their constitutionally and
statutorily protected rights to make their own medical decisions consistent with their faith and in
consultation with their doctors and other medical professionals.
DEFENDANTS
34. The Western Michigan University (WMU) Board of Trustees is a public state
6
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLl JB ECF No. 15, PagelD.154 Filec, _.4/03/21 Page 7 of 30
governmental entity established and organized under, and pursuant to, the laws of the State of
Michigan with the authority to sue and be sued in its own name. Defendant operates within this
District. At all times relevant, Defendant has acted, and continues to act, under color of state
law.
35. Defendant Edward Montgomery is an individual and President for WMU who is
directly implementing and enforcing the medical treatment policies at issue in this case. He
requires Plaintiffs to comply with the contested policies set forth in this Complaint or lose their
right to continue as members of the soccer team. He is being sued in his official capacity.
36. WMU and its officials are responsible for creating, adopting, approving, ratifying,
and enforcing the policies, practices, customs, and procedures of the university, including the
challenged policies, practices, customs, and procedures set forth in this Complaint.
37. Defendant Kathy Beauregard is an individual and Athletic Director for WMU who
is directly implementing and enforcing the medical treatment policies at issue in this case. She
requires Plaintiffs to comply with the contested policies set forth in this Complaint or lose their
right to continue as members of the soccer team. She is being sued in her official capacity.
38. Defendant Beauregard violated Plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional and
statutory rights and acted outside the scope of her authority in approving and enforcing these
policies. She is being sued in her official capacity.
39. Defendant Tammy L. Miller is an individual and Associate Director of Institutional
Equity at WMU and, as the Institutional Equity representative, acted to ban Plaintiffs from
engaging in practices and competition in any intercollegiate athletic program at WMU beginning
August 31, 2021 (Exhibit A). She is being sued in her official capacity.
40. Defendant Miller violated Plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional and statutory
7
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PL1 3E3 ECF No. 15, PageID.155 Filec /0321J Page 8 of 30
rights and acted outside the scope of her authority in approving and enforcing these policies.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
41. Defendants adopted a policy, practice, custom, and procedure on August 12, 2021,
requiring and forcing Plaintiffs to take one of the Covid-19 vaccines by August 31, 2021, or be
removed from their positions on the WMU women's soccer team and lose their right to participate
in intercollegiate athletics.
42. Plaintiffs were informed that they would get an email with procedures to be
followed to request a religious exemption or medical exemption by the end of the following week.
43. Defendants failed to send the promised procedures, so Plaintiffs (Emily Dahl,
Hannah Redoute, Bailey Korhorn, and Morgan Otteson) took the initiative and on August 23,
2021, wrote to Defendants requesting that the procedures be disclosed.
44. On August 24, 2021, Plaintiffs received a link to the procedures, including the right
to request an exemption to the new policy on the basis of their religious beliefs.
45. On August 24 and 25, 2021, Plaintiffs (Emily Dahl, Hannah Redoute, Bailey
Korhorn, and Morgan Otteson) submitted their religious exemption requests to WMU. Each
Plaintiffexpressly articulated of their sincerely held religious Christian belief and articulated how
taking the shot would substantially interfere with the exercise of this sincerely held religious
belief. (see Statement of Morgan Otteson incorporated herein (Exhibit B); Statement of Emily
Dahl incorporated herein (Exhibit C); Statement of Bailey Korhorn incorporated herein (Exhibit
D); and Statement of Hannah Redoute incorporated herein (Exhibit E)).
46. Plaintiffs stated their sincerely held Christian beliefs to Defendant and explained to
Defendants why these sincerely held beliefs prevented them from taking the COVID-19 shot.
47. On August 25, 2021, Defendants denied the requested religious exemptions for
8
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PL14 JB ECF No. 15, PagelD.156 Filec J/03/21 Page 9 of 30
three of the Plaintiffs (Emily Dahl, Hannah Redoute, Bailey Korhorn), and Defendants denied the
final request(Morgan Otteseon) on August 30, 2021 (Exhibit F, G,H, and I).
48. On August 26, 2021, Plaintiffs (Emily Dahl, Hannah Redoute, Bailey Korhorn)
submitted a written request for an explanation for the denials and for information on their right to
appeal the denial.
49. On August 24, 2021, Jake Moertl submitted his religious accommodation request
form to Defendants, and Defendants denied the requested accommodation on August 25, 2021
(Exhibit N).
50. On August 26, 2021, Kia Brooks submitted her religious accommodation request
(Exhibit 0).
51. On August 26, 2021, Aubree Ensign submitted her religious accommodation
request form to Defendants, and Defendants denied the requested accommodation on August 30,
2021 (Exhibit P).
52. On August 26, 2021, Reilly Jacobson submitted her religious accommodation
2021 (Exhibit Q).
53. On August 30, 2021, Taylor Williams submitted her religious accommodation
2021 (Exhibit R).
54. On August 31,2021, Kaelyn Parker submitted her religious accommodation request
(Exhibit S).
9
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM ECF No. 15, PagelD.157 Filed J03/21 Page 10 of 30
55. On August 27, 2021, Annalise James submitted her religious accommodation
2021 (Exhibit T).
56. On August 30, 2021, Maxwell Huntley submitted his religious accommodation
2021 (Exhibit U).
57. On August 31, 2021, Sydney Schafer submitted her religious accommodation
2021 (Exhibit V).
58. On August 25, 2021, Danielle Natte submitted her religious accommodation
request form to Defendants, and Defendants have yet to respond to her request(Exhibit W). Ms.
Natte is treating Defendants' non-response as a denial since she is not allowed to practice or
compete in meets.
59. On August 31, 2021, Nicole Morehouse submitted her religious accommodation
request form to Defendants, and WMU has not yet responded to her request (Exhibit Y). Ms.
Morehouse is treating WMU's non-response as a denial since she is not allowed to practice or
compete in meets.
60. On August 29, 2021, Katelyn Spooner submitted her religious accommodation
2021 (Exhibit X).
61. Defendants made clear that the denial was not due to the insufficiency or insincerity
of Plaintiffs' religious beliefs, referring Plaintiffs to the explanation section of the Defendants'
response which stated: "The university has a compelling interest in taking action to avoid the
10
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLIVI JB ECF No. 15, PagelD.158 Filed 1
. 03/21 Page 11 of 30
significant risk posed to the intercollegiate athletic programs of a Covid-19 outbreak due to
unvaccinated participants and prohibiting unvaccinated members of the teams from engaging in
practices and competition is the only effective manner of accomplishing this compelling interest."
62. Defendants informed Plaintiffs that their decision was final, and no further appeal
was available to them at WMU.
63. All Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if injunctive relief is not granted because
they will be removed from their respective sports teams and not allowed to participate in practices,
games, or any other team activities.
64. The National Collegiate Athletic Association(NCAA)does not require Defendants
to implement this policy mandating a medical treatment in order to participate in intercollegiate
athletics.
65. Defendants do not require the general student body at WMU to be vaccinated in
order to be physically present on campus, to attend school, to attend intercollegiate athletic events,
to live in the dorms, or to otherwise participate in the educational programs at WMU.
66. Defendants adopted, authorized, mandated, and approved these policies, which
force Plaintiffs to take the vaccine shot in direct opposition to, and in violation of, Plaintiffs'
personal identity, autonomy, and their sincerely held religious beliefs and convictions, and in
violation of its own policies, federal and state statutes, and constitutional provisions.
67. Defendants' policies, practices, customs, and procedures encourage school
officials, and others, to silence and disparage opinions, ideas, and viewpoints that disagree with its
medical determination made without consulting with Plaintiffs' doctors or accommodating
Plaintiffs religious objections.
68. Defendants' training, supervision, policies, practices, customs, and procedures chill
11
Case 1:21-ov-00757-PM, JB ECF No. 15, PagelD.159 Filed ,..i/03/21 Page 12 of 30
the expression of religious viewpoints, such as those held by Plaintiffs.
69. Defendants' training, supervision, policies, practices, customs, and procedures
demean and diminish the personal autonomy and dignity of Plaintiffs and all students who have a
differing viewpoint and disagree with WMU's policies and actions.
COUNT I - FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION VIOLATION

(First Amendment; 42 U.S.C. 1983)
70. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 69 as if fully
restated herein.
71. By reason of the aforementioned acts, policies, practices, customs and procedures
created, adopted, and enforced under color of state law, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their
right to the free exercise of their sincerely held religious beliefs in violation of the First
Amendment, as applied to the states and their political subdivisions under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
72. Defendants violate Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to freely exercise their
religious beliefs by mandating an invasive medical treatment that substantially interferes with
Plaintiffs' religious free exercise rights.
73. Defendants' policies violate the First Amendment by punishing students who
exercise their religious beliefs in connection with their personal medical decisions.
74. Plaintiffs' compliance with their sincerely held religious beliefs is a religious
exercise.
75. Defendants' policies and practices are not general laws as they specifically target
Christians who share Plaintiffs' sincerely held religious views, but leave untouched students who
ascribe to other or no faith traditions.
76. By design, Defendants' exemption denials, policies and practices are imposed on
12
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM--A ECF No. 15, PagelD.160 Filed u.,iO3/21 Page 13 of 30
some religious students, but not on others, resulting in unjust discrimination amongst religious
beliefs.
77. Defendants' policies and practices further no compelling governmental interest as
they directly violate Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.
78. Defendants' policies and practices fail to provide the least restrictive means of
furthering any stated interest and are not narrowly tailored.
79. Defendants' policies and practices create government-imposed, coercive pressure
on Plaintiffs to change or violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
80. Defendants' policies, practices, customs, and procedures, punish and impose
discipline on any student for exercising his or her right to free exercise of their religious beliefs.
Defendants' actions injure Plaintiffs by chilling their religious activity and religious speech
through threat of discipline and sanction by Defendants for failure to comply with its new policies.
81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violation of the First Amendment,
Plaintiffs have suffered, and will suffer, irreparable harm, including the loss of their fundamental
constitutional rights, entitling them to declaratory and injunctive relief. Additionally, Plaintiffs are
entitled to nominal damages for the loss of their constitutional rights.
COUNT II - RIGHT TO PRIVACY,PERSONAL AUTONOMY,AND PERSONAL IDENTITY

(Fourteenth Amendment; 42 U.S.C. 4 1983)
restated herein.
fundamental constitutional right to privacy, personal autonomy, and personal identity, all in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to the states and their political subdivisions
13
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM JB ECF No. 15, PagelD.161 Filed ,.//03/21 Page 14 of 30
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
84. Defendants further deprived Plaintiffs of their fundamental right to bodily integrity
to make their own informed medical decisions with the assistance of their personal physicians.
85. By favoring and enforcing policies that approve of and force medical treatment over
Plaintiffs' right to privacy, personal identity and personal autonomy,Defendants violate Plaintiffs'
Fourteenth Amendment rights.
86. Defendants' conduct deprives Plaintiffs of their personal choices central to
individual dignity and autonomy,including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs
by stigmatizing and labeling their sincerely held religious beliefs as unworthy of protection by
Defendants.
discipline on Plaintiffs for alleged violations of Defendants' new policies, simply for exercising
their religious and medical right to make their own medical decisions. Defendants' actions injure
Plaintiffs by violating their constitutional rights through threat of discipline and sanction by
Defendants for failure to comply with its new policies.
88. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment, Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm,
including the loss of their fundamental constitutional rights, entitling them to declaratory and
injunctive relief. Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled to nominal damages for the loss of their
constitutional rights.
14
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM--JI3 ECF No. 15, PagelD.162 Filed t,a103/21 Page 15 of 30
COUNT III — DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION -

(42 U.S.C.§ 2000a, et. seq.)
89. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and repeat herein paragraphs 1 through 88 above as if
fully restated herein.
90. Defendants operate its school as a place of public accommodation as defined in 42
U.S.C. § 2000a, et. seq. (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
91. Defendants are involved in commerce as defined in the Act.
92. Defendants' implementation of its policies and procedures to mandate vaccinations
for student athletes violate the Act and deprive Plaintiffs oftheir civil rights by subjecting Plaintiffs
to conduct which has the purpose and effect of denying them the full benefit of the public
accommodations and educational facilities at Defendants' school buildings and athletic venues and
denies them full and equal access to the use and privileges of its public accommodations and
educational facilities, on the basis of religion.
93. Defendants' policies have the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with
Plaintiffs' right to access and utilize public accommodations and public services, including
education and athletic participation, and creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive public
accommodation, public service, and educational environment for all the above-stated reasons.
94. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations of the Act, Plaintiff
students have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer, damages, including the following:
A. Loss of use of school facilities.
B. Fear about using the school facilities.
C. Embarrassment and humiliation.
D. Severe emotional distress.
15
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM--A3 ECF No. 15, PagelD.163 Filed ui/03/21 Page 16 of 30
E. All other damages that reasonably flow from Defendants' outrageous and illegal
policies, practices, procedures, and actions.
COUNT IV - MICHIGAN CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
restated herein.
right to freely exercise their religion under Michigan's Constitution of 1963 a by violating Article
1, §4 of the Michigan Constitution,
97. Defendants' policies, for all the reasons as stated above, deny Plaintiffs the right
and "liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience," and further
"diminishes the civil and political rights, privileges and capacities" of Plaintiffs on account of their
religious belief.
discipline on any student for exercising his or her state constitutional rights as stated above.
Defendants' actions injure Plaintiffs by chilling their constitutionally protected activity through
threat of discipline and sanction by Defendants for failure to comply with its new policies.
99. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violation of the state constitutional
provisions specified above, Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer,
irreparable harm, including the loss of their fundamental constitutional rights, entitling them to
declaratory and injunctive relief. Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled to nominal damages for the
loss of their state constitutional rights.
16
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLNI JB ECF No. 15, PagelD.164 Filed s_.,/03/21 Page 17 of 30
COUNT V - ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT VIOLATION -

(MCL 37.210L et. seq.; Mich, Const. 1963 Article I, §,2; WMU Policy 11-04)
100. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and repeat herein paragraphs 1 through 99 above as if
fully restated herein.
101. Defendants operate its school as a place of public accommodation as defined in
Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (hereinafter referred to as ELCRA), MCL
37.2301(a)(iii).
102. Article 1, §2 of the Michigan Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of
religion. Violations of this constitutional provision are typically addressed through ELCRA.
Defendants' policies, for all the reasons as stated above, deny Plaintiffs the enjoyment oftheir civil
or political rights and discriminate against them in the exercise of those rights because of religion.
103. Defendants are persons, as that term is defined in ELCRA, MCL 37.2103(g).
104. Defendants' implementation of its policies and procedures to mandate vaccinations
for student athletes violate ELCRA and deprive Plaintiffs of their civil rights by subjecting
Plaintiffs to conduct which has the purpose and effect of denying them the full benefit of the public
accommodations and educational facilities at Defendants' school buildings, and denies them full
and equal access to the use and privileges of its public accommodations and educational facilities,
on the basis of religion.
105. Defendants' Non-Discrimination Policy 11-04 states: "Western Michigan
University prohibits discrimination or harassment which violates the law or which constitutes
inappropriate or unprofessional limitation of employment opportunity, University facility access,
or participation in University activities, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex,
sexual orientation, gender identity, age, protected disability, veteran status, height, weight, or
marital status."
17
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM JB ECF No. 15, PagelD.165 Filed /03/21 Page 18 of 30
106. For all the reasons stated herein, Defendants' vaccine mandate program violates
Defendants' own policy by failing to provide a religious exemption to the vaccine
requirement.
107. The loss of participation in the athletic programs and activities at WMU
discriminates "on the basis of religion," and violates Plaintiffs' rights under the Michigan
Constitution, WMU policy, and under ELCRA.
108. Defendants' policies have the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with
the Plaintiffs' right to access and utilize public accommodations and public services, including
education and athletic participation, and creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive public
accommodation, public service, and educational envirom-nent for all the above-stated reasons.
109. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations of the Michigan
Constitution, WMU policy, and ELCRA, Plaintiff students will continue to suffer the following
consequences:
A. Loss of use of school facilities.
B. Fear about using the school facilities.
C. Embarrassment and humiliation.
D. All other damages that reasonably flow from Defendants' illegal policies, practices,
procedures, and actions.
18
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM JB ECF No. 15, PagelD.166 Filed'...,/03/21 Page 19 of 30
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs ask this Honorable Court:
A. to declare that Defendants' athletic vaccine mandate policy which provides no
religious accommodations is invalid and unconstitutional for all the reasons as set forth in this
Complaint;
B. to declare that Defendants acted unconstitutionally, outside their authority, and in
an ultra vices manner as set forth in this Complaint;
C. to declare that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' fundamental constitutional rights as
set forth in this Complaint;
D. to declare that Defendants' violated Plaintiffs' statutory rights as set forth in this
Complaint;
E. to declare that Defendants' policy violates Michigan's Constitution, WMU Policy,
and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act for all the reasons as stated above;
F. to issue an ex-parte temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent
injunctions enjoining Defendants' new vaccine mandate policy for all the reasons as set forth in
this Complaint (See attached Affidavits, Exhibits J, K, L, and M);
G. to award Plaintiffs nominal damages;
H. to award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1988, Title IX, and other applicable law; and
I. grant such other and further relief as is just and appropriate.
19
Case 1:21-cv-00757-P JB ECF No. 15, PagefD.167 Rea _J/03/21 Page 20 of 30
GREAT LAKES JUSTICE CENTER:
ls/ David A Kaltman

By David A Kallman (P34200)
Attorney for PI ai nti fis
I HEREBY STATE AND AFFIRM THAT I DAVE tIAD READ TILE FOREGOING
FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND THAT IT IS TRUE AND
ACCURATE TO TIIE BEST OF MY INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
DATED September 2, 2021.
DATED. September 2, 2021. '0114/1/1(1

Ilannah Redoutc
eW/
DATED- September 2, 2021
DATED. September 2, 2021.

g Ottes n
DATED September 2, 2021.

Jacob Moertl
DATED: September 2. 2021.

Kia Brooks
DATED. September 2, 2021

Aubree Ensign
DATED- September 2, 2021.

Reilly Jacobson
20
/s/ David A. Kallman

By: David A. Kallman (1'34200)
Attorney for Plaintiffs
FOREGOING
I HEREBY STATE AND AFFIRM THAT I HAVE HAD READ THE
THAT IT IS TRUE AND
FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND
MATIO N,KNOW LEDG E AND BELIEF.
ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY INFOR
DATED: September 2, 2021.

Emily Dahl

Hannah Redoute
DATED:September 2, 2021,
Bailey Korhom

Morgan Otteson
DATED:September 2, 2021.
Jacob Moertl

Kia Brooks

Aubree Ensign
20
. DATED:September 2,2021.

Sydney Schafe

Danielle Natte
DATED:September 2,2021.
Katelyn Spooner
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLIvi JB ECF No. 15, PageID.172 Filed _J/03/21 Page 25 of 30

Taylor Williams

Annalise James

Maxwell Huntley

Sydney Schafer

Danielle Natte

Katelyn Spooner
21
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLN. ,JB ECF No. 15, PagelD.173 File() -1/03/21 Page 26 of 30

Taylor Williams

Kaelyn Parker

Anna lise James

Maxwell Huntley

Sydney Schafer

Danielle Natte

Katelyn Spooner
21
DocuSign Entosg&i• SyitteF663-tncfstki JR
D3EtIPNo. 15, PagelD.174 Filed ,...)/03/21 Page 27 of 30

Taylor Williams

Kaelyn Parker

Annalise James
r—DocuSigned by:

r--\41)1(TPrt-flThdey

Sydney Schafer

Danielle Natte

Katelyn Spooner
21
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM JB ECF No. 15, PagelD.176 Filed ,J/03/21 Page 29 of 30

Taylor Williams

Kaelyn Parker

Annalise James
DATED: September 2,2021.

Maxwell Huntley

Sydney Schafer

Danielle Natte

Katelyn Spod e
21
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM JE3 ECF No. 15, PagelD.177 Filed J03/21 Page 30 of 30

&cot zrytilccox_
Nicole Morehouse
22
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-_,B ECF No. 15-1, PagelD.178 Flit—. 09/03/21 Page 1 of 1
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
A. WMU August 31 Deadline Correspondence
B. Religious Accommodation Request, Morgan Ottseon
C. Religious Accommodation Request, Emily Dahl
D. Religious Accommodation Request, Bailey Korhorn
E. Religious Accommodation Request, Hannah Redoute
F. WMU Denial of Religious Accommodation, Bailey Korhorn
G. WMU Denial of Religious Accommodation, Emily Dahl
H. WMU Denial of Religious Accommodation, Hannah Redoute
I. WMU Denial of Religious Accommodation, Morgan Otteson
J. Affidavit of Hannah Redoute
K. Affidavit of Bailey Korhorn
L. Affidavit of Emily Dahl
M. Affidavit of Morgan Otteson
N. Religious Accommodation Request and Denial, Jacob Moertl
O. Religious Accommodation Request and Denial, Kia Brooks
P. Religious Accommodation Request and Denial, Aubree Ensign
Q. Religious Accommodation Request and Denial, Reilly Jacobson
R. Religious Accommodation Request and Denial, Taylor Williams
S. Religious Accommodation Request and Denial, Kaelyn Parker
T. Religious Accommodation Request and Denial, Annalise James
U. Religious Accommodation Request and Denial, Maxwell Huntley
V. Religious Accommodation Request and Denial, Sydney Schafer
W. Religious Accommodation Request and Denial, Danielle Natte
X. Religious Accommodation Request and Denial, Katelyn Spooner
Y. Religious Accommodation Request and Denial, Nicole Morehouse
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM- ,B ECF No. 15-2, PagelD.179 Flit. J9/03/21 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT A
Kathy Beauregard 6:01 PM

The NCAA, Mid-American Conference, and
Western Michigan University acknowledge
data indicating that COVID-19 vaccination
remains the most effective strategy to protect
against the pandemic. Thus, to maintain full
involvement in the athletic department
community at Western Michigan University, all
student-athletes, coaches, and athletic staff
members are directed to provide proof of a
minimum of a first COVID-19 vaccine no later
than August 31, 2021. Medical or religious
exemptions and accommodations will be
considered on an individual basis. Proof of
vaccine protocols will be communicated by
athletic department personnel to all parties.
Individuals needing direction on vaccination
options and locations should contact the
athletic department athletic training staff.
Kathy Beauregard
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-:._s ECF No. 15-3, PagelD.181 File J9/03/21 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT B
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-,_ 3 ECF No. 15-3, PagelD.182 File, J9/03/21 Page 2 of 4
WESTERN
MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY
RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION REQUEST FORM
Part 1: To be completed by employee/student
Name: Morgan Otteson Job title/Student class: Senior

Date of request: 8/25/21 WIN or Employee ID Number: 725717381
Immediate supervisor/instructor: Sammy Boateng
Requested accommodation (exemption):
Religious exemption from the mandated COVID-19 vaccine in Athletics
Length of time the accommodation is needed: Graduation

from WMU
Describe the religious belief or practice that necessitates this request for accommodation (include
additional pages, if needed):
Please see attached Word Doc
Describe any alternate accommodations that might address your needs:

I will continue to get COVID tested weekly
I will continue to wear a mask in all indoor facilities at WMU
My religious beliefs and practices, which result in this request for a religious accommodation, are
sincerely held. I understand that the accommodation requested above may not be granted but
that the University will attempt to provide a reasonable accommodation that does not create an
undue hardship on the University. I understand that the University may need to obtain supporting
documentation regarding my religious practice and beliefs to further evaluate my request for a
religious accommodation.
Employee/Student signature:
Morgan Otteson Date: 8/25/21
Please send completed form to: ole-info@wmIch.edu
Adapted by a form created by cda.org Copyright02021

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-- .3 ECF No. 15-3, PagelD.183 File. J9/03/21 Page 3 of 4
Religious Accommodation Request Form l 2 of 2
Part 2: To be completed by WMU Institutional Equity office:
Describe the requested accommodation:

Exemption from COVID 19 Vaccine while participating in Intercollegiate Athletic Sports
Evaluation of impact (if any):
Campus Safety
Athletic Program Safety
Approved: Denied: X
If the requested accommodation is denied, what are some alternative accommodations (list in order
of preference):
1. Maintain Scholarship for 2021-2022
Date discussed with employee/student: Emailed to student 8/30/2021

Final accommodation agreed upon:
If no agreement on an accommodation, provide an explanation:

The University has a compelling interest in taking action to avoid the significant risk posed to the
intercollegiate athletic programs of a Covid-19 outbreak due to unvaccinated participants and
prohibiting unvaccinated members of the teams from engaging in practices and competition is the
only effective manner of accomplishing this compelling interest. Testing Is required for the safety of
the campus community.
Institutional Equity representative signature: Tammy Miller, Assoc. Dir. Date: 8/30/21
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-- 3 ECF No. 15-3, PagelD.184 File_ J9/03/21 Page 4 of 4
To the Vaccine Exemption Committee:
I, Morgan Otteson, am exercising my right to receive a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine.
Being raised in a Christian household my entire life, I trust that God will protect His beautiful creation of
the human body no matter what evil is surrounding it. Throughout college I have seen tremendous
growth in my personal faith with God and dedicated my life to Him.
Psalm 23:4 "Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with
me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me."
In God's eyes, my body is a temple, and He intends for me to keep my body clean from any unclean food
or injections. I sincerely believe God has given me the strength to naturally fight off any illnesses and
given me a purpose to fulfill during my time here on Earth.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's
Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for
God's temple is sacred, and you together are that temple."
I believe that God has a plan for me,and I will follow Him through the darkest valleys. He has called me
to trust in His plan. God has counted my days on this Earth, and I have chosen to live a life following
God, even when I am faced with unknowns.
Job 14:5 "Man's days are determined; you (God) have decreed the number of his months and
have set limits he cannot exceed."
Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord. Plans to prosper you and
not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."
As someone who has tested positive from this virus, God has blessed me with being asymptomatic and
the natural immunity to fight off infection.
Mark 16:18 "They will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt
them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
I sincerely express my religious values and beliefs to you, though I am not perfect, I will continue to
submit myself to the Lord the best way I can. I cannot violate my conscience that has been given to me
by God. I trust that He will protect me on this Earth, free from evil and illness until I join Him eternally in
Heaven.
Exodus 15:26 He said, "If you listen carefully to the LORD your God and do what is right in his
eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any
of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you."
Sincerely,
Morgan Otteson
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-- .3 ECF No. 15-4, PagelD.185 File, J9/03/21 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT C
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-:...._ ECF No. 15-4, PagelD.186 Filet.. J9/03/21 Page 2 of 5
WESTERN
MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY
Name: Emily Dahl Job title/Student class:

Student-athlete/Senior

Religous exemption from the mandated COVID-19 vaccine.
Length of time the accommodation is needed: May 2022

I. Emily Dahl am exercising my right to receive a religious exemption for vaccination. I have grown up in a very religious household surrounded by devoted Christians.
I recently developed my own personal relationship with God. Since attending Western Michigan University, I joined FCA (Fellowship Christian Athletes) and a bible study to dive deeper in my faith.
I truly began to abide by the teachings of the bible and my God as I learned more about it. I learned more about my faith by reading the bible, attending bible study, and listening to the Bible in a Year
podcasl with Father Mike Schmitz. I have learned through the Bible to trust in the Lord with all of my heart and mind, he had planned my entire life and that he had great things planned for me,so I
should not worry about anything but instead trust in him. l know through prayer and asking God, that he will give me the strength to get through anything. When Coyid-19 first appeared, there was a
period of doubt and fear that I felt. l was scared for my family and friends. I turned to God. prayed and fell a sense of calm in his word...(continued on attached document)

will continue to take precaustions and safety measures to protect myself and those around me. I can continue to get tested to ensure my health. I will
also continue to wear a mask when I am around others or anywhere in WMtts campus. As an accomodalion, I have already changed all my classes to online settings.
Emily Dahl 8/24/21
Employee/Student signature: Date:
Please send completed form to: oie-info@wmich.edu
Adapted by a form created by cdo.org Copyright 02021

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-L ECF No. 15-4, PagelD.187 File. ,9/03/21 Page 3 of 5
Religious Accommodation Request Form I 2 of 2
Part 2: To be completed by WMU Institutional Equity office
Approved: I 1 Denied*
of preference):
1.
2.
3.
Date discussed with employee/student:

Institutional Equity representative signature: Date:

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM,_ 3 ECF No. 15-4, PagelD.188 File_ J9/03/21 Page 4 of 5
(Philippians 4:6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication
with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God). I prayed for my safety, the safety of
everyone and especially those high-risk individuals that they would also be protected (James
5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be
healed. The prayer of the righteous person has great power as it is working). I am happy that so
many high-risk individuals have felt comfort in the new vaccines. I however, trust in the Lord
that he will keep me strong, heal me and prevent me from Covid-19 as long as I abide by his
word, pray and trust in him (Deuteronomy 7:15 And the Lord will take away from you all
sickness, and none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which you knew, will he inflict on you, but he
will lay them on all who hate you)(Luke 8:50 But Jesus on hearing this answered him,"Do not
fear; only believe and she will be well). My conscience is a gift from God. He gave me the Holy
Spirit within me to protect me, guide me and not go against the word of God. Taking the vaccine
would go against my conscience and I do not want to have seared conscience.(Acts 5:29 "But
Peter and the apostles answered,"We must obey God rather than man.") With my personal,
strongly held beliefs in my God, I am not willing to take the new vaccine. I trust that the Lord
has predetermined the last part of my athletic career and academic year at Western Michigan
University, for which I have worked so extremely hard to achieve, and that I will be bale able to
finish my journey as a Bronco safety, enjoyably and healthily. I have faith God will get us
through this pandemic together!
God Bless,
Emily Dahl
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S , ECF No. 15-4, PageJD.189 Fiiee 9/03/21 Page 5 of 5
Holy Trinity Parish

Avon, Ohio
8/26/2021
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing on behalf of Emily Dahl,a baptized Catholic and parishioner

at Holy Trinity parish where I serve, regarding grounds for conscientious
exemption for Covid-19 vaccination.
The Catholic Church has recently clarified that receiving the currently
available Covid 19 vaccines (Pfizer-Biotech, Moderna,Johnson and
Johnson, and AstraZeneca) is not morally prohibited. Furthermore,
Pope Francis has encouraged all Catholics to consider taking the vaccine,
based on their moral responsibility to support the good of the entire
community, particularly those most vulnerable to the virus and for the
respect for all life.
At the same time,the Church also upholds the rights of conscience, and
guards against forcing any person to act against their conscience. After
speaking with Emily, I find that she has sincerely held reasons of
conscience she has manifested to me leading her to reject the vaccine.
Sincerely,
Fr. Vince Hawk

Pastor, Holy Trinity
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM--8 ECF No. 15-5, PagelD.190 File_ 39/03/21 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT D
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-. 3 ECF No. 15-5, PagelD.191 File_ J9/03/21 Page 2 of 6
WESTERN
MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY
Name: Bailey Korhorn Job title/Student class: 5

5th year student athlete
Date of request: 8124/21 WIN or Employee ID Number: 430601105

Immediate supervisor/instructor: Samuel Boateng
COVID-19 Vaccine

am a devout Christian and have dedicated my life to God. Everything I do on the soccer field Is because of God. He has given me talent and a gift
and a gift and by playing soccer, I am glorifying Him by using the gift he has given me. God knew me before he created me, therefore I have complete
confidence that I am a child of the Living God."For you created my Inmost being; you knit me together in my mothers womb," Psalm 139:13. God also
created us in his own image,"so God created us In his own image, In the image of God he created him; male and female he created them," Genesis
1:27. Therefore, I trust that God loves me, guides me, and will protect me. I trust the Lord with my life and He is calling me In this way to not go against
my conscience.(See attached word document for more).

I will continue to follow campus's safety protocols by practicing social distending, wearing masks when required, complete my daily health surveys,
and continue to practice personal hygiene. For the safety of myself and others, I will also continue to get covid tested when needed as a student athlete.
Employee/Student signature: Bailey Korhorn Date: 8/24/21
Please send completed form to: ole-Info@wmIch.edu
Adapted by a form created by cda.org Copyright@ 2021

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM s ECF No. 15-5, PageJD.192 ./9103/21 Page 3 of 6
Religious Accommodation Request Form 12 of 2

Exemption from intercollegiate Athletics Vaccine Mandate while participating in intercollegiate
sports.
Campus Safety
Approved: Denied: X
If the requested accommodation is denied, what are some alternative accommodations (lisf in order
of preference):
1. Maintain Scholorship for 2021-2022
2. No participation in Intercollegiate Sports
3. Comply with testing and mask mandate
Date discussed with employee/student: Emalled to student 8/25/2021


Intercollegiate athletic programs of a Covid-19 outbreak due to unvaccinated participants and
prohibiting unvaccinated members of the teams from engaging In practices and competition is the
only effective manner of accomplishing this compelling interest.
Institutional Equity representative signature:(J Date: 6P/20-/2/

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM- 3 ECF No. 15-5, PageID.193 File., J9/03/21 Page 4 of 6
I am a devout Christian and have dedicated my life to God. Everything I do on the soccer field is
because of God. He has given me talent and a gift and by playing soccer, I am glorifying Him by
using the gift he has given me. God knew me before he created me,therefore I have complete
confidence that I am a child of the Living God."For you created my inmost being; you knit me
together in my mothers womb," Psalm 139:13. God also created us in his own image,"so God
created us in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created
them," Genesis 1:27. Therefore, I trust that God loves me, guides me,and will protect me. I trust
the Lord with my life and He is calling me in this way to not go against my conscience. Timothy
1:5 states,"The purpose of my instruction is that all believers would be filled with love that
comes from a pure heart, a clear conscience, and genuine faith." I trust that God is paving me
this path to not get the Covid-19 vaccine. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart; do not depend
on your own understanding. Seek his will in all you do, and he will show you which path to
take," Proverbs 3:5-6. There are numerous quotes in the Bible that I could list. All will pertain to
God loving me, protecting me, saving me, and sending angels around me and guide me. As a
Christian, I trust God with my health, life, body, and soul. My body is a temple of the living
God,I am commanded to do whatever 1 do of faith, otherwise it is a sin, and I know that
ultimately, my God is my healer and my sustainer in this life. For these spiritual/religious
convictions, I am lead to this point where I must respectfully decline receiving any Covid-19
vaccination, and I humbly request you grant my religious exemptions accordingly.
cco)r) „
ve:ttir)u...- tile filiaitilt
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-, 3 ECF No. 15-6, PagelD.196 File, J9/03/21 Page 1. of 4
EXHIBIT E
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-,. ECF No. 15-6, PagelD.197 FilE. J9/03/21 Page 2 of 4
WESTERN
MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY
Name: Hannah Redoute Job title/Student class: Fifth year student athlete
COVID-19 Vaccine

On a word document attached below.

I will continue to get tested every week and wear a mask in public places and when around others.
Hannah Redoute 8/25/21
Adapted by a form created by cda.org Copyright © 2021

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-, 3 ECF No. 15-6, PagelD.198 File, J9/03/21 Page 3 of 4
Approved: I Denied
of preference):
I.
2.
3.

I will continue to get Covid tested every week and wear a mask when in public places and around others.

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM 3 ECF No. 15-6, PagelD.199 Fili 39/03/21 Page 4 of 4
I am a member of St. John Vianney Church in Shelby Township, Michigan. I am exercising my

right to receive a religious exemption for the vaccination. I am a practicing Catholic and my
religion is really important to me.
I went through 14 years of Catholic School. I went to St. Lawrence in Utica, Michigan from
preschool to eighth grade and then went to Marian High School in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan an
all-girls Catholic High School for all four years. I have received all my Sacraments thus far
including Baptism, Penance, Eucharist, and Confirmation.
The Catholic Church states that no one should be obligated to get the vaccine. I am strongly
pro-life, and the church has stated that Catholics can refuse abortion-tainted vaccines. "Before I
formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a
prophet to the nations" —Jeremiah 1:5. "From birth I was cast on you; from my mother's womb
you have been my God" — Psalm 22:10. I am a child of the living God and I strongly believe that
God knew me before he created me. Everything that happens to me is the Lord's conscience
and he is telling me to not to get the vaccine.
Therefore, as a practicing Catholic, opposed to abortion I cannot get the vaccine according to
the Catholic Church principles. I have the right to object regarding what is put into my body. In
having said all that, the use of these vaccines would be a violation of my faith that opposes
abortion. Under the teachings I follow. I am religiously and morally bound. I request that you
respectfully grant my religious exemption.
Case 1:21.-cv-00757-PLM- 3 ECF No. 1.5-7, PagelD.200 Filc_ J9/03/21 Page 1 of 3
HIBIT F
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-- 3 ECF No. 15-7, PagelD.201 File J9/03/21 Page 2 of 3
WESTERN
MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY
Name: Bailey Korhorn Job title/Student class: 5

5th year student athlete
Date of request: 8/24/21 WIN or Employee ID Number: 43060'1105

Immediate supervisor/instructor: Samuel Boateng
COVID-19 Vaccine

am a devout Christian and have dedicated my life to God. Everything I do on the soccer field Is because of God. He has given me talent and a gift
and a gift and by playing soccer, I am glorifying Him by using the gift he has given me. God knew me before he created me, therefore I have complete
confidence that I am a child of the Living God."For you created my inmost being; you knit me together In my mothers womb," Psalm 139:13. God also
created us In his own image,"so God created us In his own image, In the image of God he created him; male and female he created them," Genesis
1:27. Therefore, I trust that God loves me, guides me, and will protect me. I trust the Lord with my ilfe and He is calling me in this way to not go against
my conscience.(See attached word document for more).

I will continue to follow campus's safety protocols by practicing social distancing, wearing masks when required, complete my daily health surveys,
and continue to practice personal hygiene, For the safety of myself and others, I will also continue to get covid tested when needed as a student athlete.
undue hardship on the University. l understand that the University may need to obtain supporting
Employee/Student signature: Bailey Korhorn Date: 8/24/21

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM- 3 ECF No. 15-7, PageID.202 File J9/03/21 Page 3 of 3
Religious Accommodation Request Form I 2 of 2
Part 2: To be completed by WMU institutional Equity office:

Exemption from Intercollegiate Athletics Vaccine Mandate while participating in Intercollegiate
sports.
Campus Safety
Approved: Denied: X
of preference):
2. No participation in intercollegiate Sports


The University has a compelling interest in taking action to avoid the significant riskposed to the
prohibiting unvaccinated members of the teams from engaging In practices and competition is the
Institutional Equity representative signature:t (12/2-,-"/Z/

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-_ _B ECF No. 15-8, PagelD.203 Fill_ 09/03/21 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT G
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-L— 3 ECF No. 15-8, PagelD.204 File J9/03/21 Page 2 of 3
WESTERN
MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY
Name: Emily Dahl Job title/Student class: Student-athlete/Senior

Religous exemption from the mandated COVID-19 vaccine.

I, Emily Dahl am exercising my right to receive a religious exemption for vaccination. I have grown up In a very religious household surrounded by devoted Christians.
I recently developed my own personal relationship with God. Since attending Western Michigan University. 1 Joined FCA (Fellowship Christian Athletes) and a bible study to dive deeper In my faith.
I truly began to abide by the teachings of the bble and my Gad as I teamed more about if.!learned more about my faith by reading the bible, attending bible study, and listening to the Bible in a Year
podcast with Father Mike Schmitz. I have learned through the Bible to trust In the Lord with al of my heart and mind, he had planned my entire life and that he had great things planned for me,so I
should not worry about anything but Instead trust In him. I know through prayer and asking God, that he will glve me the strength to get through anything. When Covidl9 first appeared, there was a
period of doubt and fear that I felt. I was scared for my family and friends. I lumed to God, prayed and (elt a sense of calm In his word...(continued on attached document)

I will continue to take precaustions and safety measures to protect myself and those around me. I can continue to get tested to ensure my health. I will
also continue to wear a mask when I am around others or anywhere In WMU's campus.As an accomodation, I have already changed all my classes to online settings.
Employee/Student signature: Emily Dahl Date: 8/24/21
Please send completed form to: ode-info@wmIckedu

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM- 3 ECF No. 15-8, PagelD.205 Filc J9/03/21 Page 3 of 3

sports.
Campus Safety
Approved: Denied: X
of preference):
Date discussed with employee/student: Emaiied to student 8/2512021


Institutional Equity representative signature: ._// 1 Date: (e2J'/2/

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-. 3 ECF No. 15-9, PageiD.206 File, . J9/03/21 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT H
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-,_ 3 ECF No. 15-9, PagelD.207 File. J9/03/21 Page 2 of 3
WESTERN
MICHI GAN
UNIVERSITY
Name: Hannah Redoute

Job title/Student class: Fifth year student athlete
COVID-19 Vaccine

On a word document attached below.

I will continue to get tested every week and wear a mask in public places and when around others.
Employee/Student signature: Hannah Redoute Date: 8/25/21

Please send completed form to: oie-info@wmIch.edu

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLMs ECF No. 15-9, PagelD.208 File, ,9/03/21 Page 3 of 3

sports.
Campus Safety
Approved: Denied: X
of preference):
Date discussed with employee/student: Emalied to student 8/25/2021


The University has a compelling interest In taking action to avoid the significant risk posed to the
Institutional Equity representative signature:& Date: 6Pb-1/2J

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-5., , ECF No. 15-10, PagelD.209 Filt_ 09/03/21 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT I
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM- ECF No. 15-10, PageID.210 Flit 39/03/21 Page 2 of 3
WESTERN
MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY
Name: Morgan Otteson Job title/Student class: Senior

Religious exemption from the mandated COVID-19 vaccine in Athletics
Length of time the accommodation is needed:

Graduation from WMU
Please see attached Word Doc

I will continue to get COVID tested weekly
I will continue to wear a mask in all indoor facilities at WMU
Morgan Otteson Date: 8/25/21
Please send completed form to: ole-info@wmich.edu
Adapted by a form created by cda.org Copyright Q 2021

Case 1:21-cy-00757-PLM-L , ECF No. 15-10, PagelD.211 Fitt. 39/03/21 Page 3 of 3

Campus Safety
Approved: Denied: X
of preference):
1. Maintain Scholarship for 2021.2022


Institutional Equity representative signature: Tammy Miller, Assoc. Dir. Date: 8/30121
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-L ECF No. 15-11, PagelD.212 Fil. 09/03/21 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT Jr
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S ECF No. 15-11, PageiD.213 Filt. 39/03/21 Page 2 of 3
Iti 1111.: UNITED STATEs DISTRICT C:Or

FoiR wEsTERN DisTFurr oF micHIGAN
SOUTIIEIZN DIVISION
END IN DAHL HANNAH AFFIDAVIT OF 11A :

IZEDOU1E.
11:111.1".1' KORDOI2N. and RED01"rE
MORGAN
OT l'1 ON,
Plaintiffs.
E BOARD OF TRusTEEs OF WESTERN CASE N0.:

MICHIGAN'(AlvERsrry: KATIlY
BEA[REGARD,Athletic Director; and 110N.:
1- AMMY 3111.1.E11, Associate Director
of lnsiitutional
Defendants.
GREAT K ..1t:STI( CENTER:

David A. Kaltman (P34200)
. , teplicit P. Kaltman (P75622)
Erin Vlersino (P70886)
Jack ('. Jordan (P46551)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5600 11 .'donut Dope Hwy.
Lansing. MI 48917
(51'7) 322-32(17
AFFIDAVIT OF HANNAH REDOUTE
fhe Affiant, Hannah Redoute, being first duly sworn, hereby deposes and states as
f011OWS
My name is I lannah Redoute and I am a student athlete at \A esteni Michigan Universi is

and I am a Plaintiff in this lawsuit.
I have read the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and Bnefin Support, filed in
this matter and everything contained therein is true and accurate to the best of my
information knowledge, and belief
Further affiant says not

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-E , ECF No. 15-11, PagelD.214 Fitt_ 09/03/21 Page 3 of 3
ATF. OF N1 IC11ICA N I lannah Redoute, Affirm!
UNT OF )ss.
on.this 300, day of A ugust, 2021, before me appeared I lannah Redoutc who did execute
6r:cgolng affidavit, and who, being dulv sworn, deposes and states that he has read the
g --tuavit
and know,the contents thereof. and that the same is true of his own knowledge
and Llior
cxcepf as to those matters he states to be on information and belief, and as to those
matters tie
believes them to be true
Ataxic Witw
Notary Public. k-•_101tp_(1 1___ County, Michigan
My Commission Expires: OLIO—ASO
ARIONNE FOWLKES
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF MICHIGAN
COUNTY OF SAINT JOSEPH
My C.orimIss On Expires 01-02-2028
Act,ixill the CoJnly of t.u anii00
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-L ECF No. 15-12, PagelD.215 FilL _ 09/03/21 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT K
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S. ECF No. 15-12, PageID.216 nit_ 09/03/21 Page 2 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT DISTRICT

SOUTHERN DIVISION
EMILY DAHL, HANNAH REROUTE, A FEL DAvir OF BAILEY

BAILEY KORHORN, and MORGAN KORHORN
OTTE.SON,
Plaintiffs,
s-
1'11E BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WESTERN CASE NO.:

MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY; KATHY
BE.AURECARD,Athletic Director; and HON.:
Defendants.
GREAT LAKEs.lusiitf CENTER:

Stephen P. KaIlman (P75622)
Exit' E. Mersino (P70886)
Jack C..Jordan (P46551)
5600 W. Mount Hope Hwy.
Lansing, MI 48917
(517)322-3207
AFFIDAVIT OF BAILEY KORHORN
Hte A fliant, Bailey Km-horn, being first duly sworn. hereby deposes and states as
follows
Mv name is Bailey Korhorn and 1 am a student athlete at Western Michigan t niversi

and I am a Plaintiff in this lawsuit
l have read the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and Brief in Support, filed in
this matter and everything contained therein is true and accurate to the best of my
information, knowledge, and belief
Further alliant says not
1
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S ECF No. 15-12, PageID.217 Elk_ 39/03/21 Page 3 of 3
STATE OF 13ailey Korhom„kfriant

MICIIIGAN
)SS.
COUNTY
OFKalama2uu
On this 30'1'day of •k mwsi,, 1011, before me appeared Bailey Korhorn who did execute the
Foregoing affidavit• and who,
hying dul%, sworn, deposes and states that he has read the foregoing
allid;t\ it and knows the
contents lheleul, and that Lite same is Hue of Iii; own knovdedge and belief
except as to those matters he
stales to be on information and belief, and as Io those matters he
believes them to he tine
Notao, Public. County, Micloyan

My Commission Expires 01 2.01A
ARIONNE rgAIKES
NOTARY PUIII IC. 3TAT E OF MICHIGAN
COUNTY OF SAINT JOSEPII
t•ty 0.,nrmssayi Ex:Ares 01-02-2028
Acti.g Ihe COUNV nf CIDMUI)
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM- ECF No. 15-13, PageID.218 Fill. 09/03/21 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT L
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-: ECF No. 15-13, PagelD.219 File. 09/03/21. Page 2 of 3
IN '111F: VNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

VOR THE WESTERN DISTRICI' OF MICHIGAN
SOUTIIPIRN DIVISION
EMILY DAIII„ HANNAH REROUTE, AFFIDAvry 01; DAHL

BAILEY KORDORN., and MORGAN
OTTESON,
Plaintiffs,
Tit F. BOARD OF TRtISTEES OF WESTERN CASE NO.:

NIICIIIGAN UNIVERSITY; KAIDY
REAUREGARD, Athletic Director; and 110N.:
TANINlY L. iMILLER, Associate Director
of institutional Equity,
Defendants.

Stephen I'. Kaltman (P75622)
Erin E. Mersino (P70886)
Jack C. Jordan (P46551)
5600 W. Mount hope Hwy.
Lansing, MI 48917
(517) 322-3207
AFFIDAVIT 01: EMILY DADE
The ADiant, Hnilv Dahl, being first duly sworn, hereby deposes and states as follows
\'1v name is Emily Dahl and I am :t student athlete at Western Michigan I 'niversity and
l am a Plaintiff in this lawsuit
I have read the Motion Ibr Temporary Restraining Order, and Brief in Support, tiled in
this matter and everything contained therein is true and accurate to the best or rnv
information, knowledge. and belief
l nether Miran( says not

it) ,
Emilv ,),1111, A iliant
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S , ECF No. 15-13, PageID.220 Fik 39/03/21 Page 3 of 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN
)SS.
('0 N tN. OF __Kg\MILO
Oa this 30 h day or August, 2(121, before me appeared Emily Dahl who did execute Ille
foregoing affidavit, and tivho, being dul y sworn, deposes and states that he has !vad the ffiregoing
affidavitand knows the contents thercoh, and tinn the same is true ot'his(mil k nowl edge and bel i d,
except as to Chose maners he states to be on inlbrmation and helle'', and as to (hose matters be
hclie'es tirem to be true.
Nonny Public, _al County, Michigan

My Commission Hxpires- U AL11)7,8
ARIONNE FOWLKES
NOIARY PUBLIC,STATE OF
COUNTY 01' SAINT
lAy Comtnis.en E x;;ire:-, 01-02-2020
Acittoti in mo County \<,(1,‘
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-. ECF No. 15-14, PageID.221 Fik_ 09/03/21 Page 1 of 3
E HIBIT M
1.N TI
FOR T
MiLY DAHL HAN NO

BA ILEY ORHORN a
OTTESON,
Li Fl BOARD OF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COUNTY OF KM04111(
On this 30th day of
the foregoing affidavit, an
foregoing affidavit and knu
and belief, except as to the
matters he believes them to
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-L ECF No. 15-15, PagelD.224 Flit— 09/03/21 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT N
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM s ECF No. 15-15, PagelD.225 Pik._ 09/03/21 Page 2 of 5
WESTERN
MICHIGA N
UNIVERSITY
Name: Jake Moertl

Job title/Student class: Senior
Immediate supervisor/instructor: Tim Lester
Exemption from WMU Student-Athlete COVID-19 Vaccine mandate.
Length of time the accommodation is needed: 18 months

Please refer to the attached letter page 1 paragraph 4 and 5. "It is against my sincerely held religious beliefs..."

I am willing to meet with Athletic Director Kathy Beauregard to discuss a plan acceptable to us both in order to conitinue at WMU as a student-athlete.
Employee/Student signature: Jake Moertl Date: 8/24/20
Please send completed form to: ole-Info@wmich.edu

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM- s ECF No. 15-15, PagelD.226 Filt.... 09/03/21 Page 3 of 5
Religious Accommodation Request Form 12of 2

Exemption from Intercollegiate Athletics Vaccine Mandate while participating in intercollegiate
sports.
Campus Safety
Approved: Denied: X
of preference):


Institutional Equity representative signature:jd Date: d9/,2i'/2/

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-.. ECF No. 15-15, PagelD.227 Filt._, 09/03/21 Page 4 of 5
Dear WMU Athletic Department,
As a Student-Athlete at Western Michigan University, I am writing to formally request a

religious exemption from the COVID vaccination based on my strongly held religious beliefs,
convictions, and relationship with my God.
I request that this letter remain confidential and is only shared on an as-needed basis; that is,
only those charged with approving the exemption should read my words.
I would like to offer my personal background so you can more completely understand where I
have been and where I am at, regarding God and my religious development. My life leading up
to me becoming a Christian is complex,full of pain and joy. I grew up in a religious household
where I attended church weekly and attended school at a private Lutheran School from
kindergarten to seventh grade. I turned away from God during my time at that school for much
of the pain and heartache I experienced while there from teachers and staff. I continued the
path away from God throughout high school and into my freshman year of college, here at
WMU. In the spring of my freshman, year my dad was diagnosed with brain cancer and passed
away six weeks later. Over the last two and a half years, I have constructed my faith in my God
through my experience of suffering and loss. I believe God changed the trajectory of my life and
saved me from a life of more destruction. During this time, I publicly declared my faith and
commitment to Jesus in front of my family and community. I now have a very strong, intimate,
and sacred connection to my God and His way. It is now my joy and honor to live out the
Christian life and hold myself sacred and responsible to follow His teachings.
It is against my sincerely held religious beliefs as a practicing Christian to receive this COVID
vaccination (and others), and for that reason I am exempt based on my religious tenets.
Vaccinating myself violates my personal, strongly held religious belief that my body and my
blood, is a Holy temple of God's Holy Spirit, a Sacred vessel, and is to be kept pure and free
from contaminants. To defile myself with the ingredients found in vaccines(human cells, animal
cells, foreign DNA, hazardous materials, chemicals, etc.) is a violation of my basic religious belief
in the sanctity and sacredness of human life and honor to my God. Innocent souls have died for
the creation of these products. This points to an industry that disrespects and disregards the
sanctity of life.
God made humans and called them good; our bodies are created with an intelligent immune
system, and according to Him we are called to steward and honor our bodies well. The
deceased children used in the ingredients of many vaccinations were recognized by God (and
by me)as human souls and I cannot willfully, in good conscience, support or partake in these
immunizations. Supporting vaccines is endorsing the sacrifice of those souls.
The following are some of the Bible passages that speak to, and support my religious beliefs:
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 and 10:31, Genesis 1:27-28, 4:1-2,

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM--.3 ECF No. 15-15, PagelD.228 File.. 09/03/21 Page 5 of 5
Kings 17:17-18, Psalm 22:10-11, 106: 35, 37-38, 113:7-9, 127:3, 139:13-16, Amos 1:13, Matthew
18:1-4, and Matthew 19:13-15
Exodus 20:13, Leviticus 18:21 & 20:2-5, Deuteronomy 5:13, 12:30-32, 18:10, 2 Kings 16:3, and
Psalm 106:38
Genesis 4:1, 17 and Jeremiah 1:5
Once again, l am requesting this letter remain confidential due to the highly personal contents,
which aren't a topic of casual discussion for me.
The above is an explanation of my personal religious beliefs. l hope l have described them
sufficiently. Again, these thoughts are the unique message l receive from my God. l don't ask
that you, Western Michigan University, or anyone else, agree with these thoughts and personal
translations. But under Michigan law, l respectfully request that they be honored as truthful
and legally permissible. Based on what l have shared, l ask this waiver be approved. Current
state law gives me the right to refuse immunization based on my sincere, personal religious
beliefs. Thank you for respecting my request.
Sincerely,
Jake Moertl
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-Ls ECF No. 15-16, PagelD.229 Films . 09/03/21 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT O
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-Ls ECF No. 15-16, PagelD.230 09/03/21 Page 2 of 3
WESTERN
MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY
Name: Kia Brooks Job title/Student class: Senior

Immediate supervisor/instructor: Kathy Beauregard
Religious exemption for Covid vaccine.
Length of time the accommodation is needed: August 1st, 2023

I've had multiple conversations with my family and pastor, to make my final decision. Your
conscience is to be honored and not fringed upon or dishonored as a practicing Catholic/ Christian.
Employee/Student signature: Kia Brooks Date:

08/26/2021
Adapted by a form created by cciaorg Copyright © 2021

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-L. ECF No. 15-16, PagelD.231 Fitt_ 09/03/21 Page 3 of 3

Campus Safety
Approved: Denied: X
of preference):
1. Maintain Scholarship for 2021-2022, if any
Date discussed with employee/student: EmaIled to student 8/31/2021


Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-:_ _ ECF No. 15-17, PagelD.232 Fitt._ 09/03/21 Page 1 of 6
XHI IT P
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-. s ECF No. 15-17, PageID.233 File._ 09/03/21 Page 2 of 6
WESTERN
MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY
Name: tCet , L. C--AM_:-0AfTh Job title/Student class: r-kksehin&-\

Date of request:a&l.0a5at /‘/IN or Employee ID Number:ainC1?5 5(.0 r ‘
Immediate supervisor/instructor: MCAVe,VA. ri\zlt:1_022::02W1C_CL -cal/1,-N. CCOOL-
R_O ICICf P
.)i,effi*be--)Th t,.. -bc'rTh C.N\C\Q - 1 TJC-CAVl.12,
Length of time the accommodation is needed: ---

cOAcci-v)6,
cht)icasx-S, urthi\, 4-9


Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM- 3 ECF No. 15-17, PagelD.234 FL 09/03/21 Page 3 of 6

Campus Safety
Approved: Denied: X
of preference):


intercollegiate athletic programs of a Covid-19 outbreak due to unvaccinated_participants and
the cgmpus community.
Institutional Equity representative signature: Tammy Miller, Assoc. Dir. Date: 8/3Q/21
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-L _ J ECF No. 15-17, PagelD.235 Fik— 09/03/21 Page 4 of 6
Affidavit of Religious Belief for Exemption from COVID Vaccination
1. I, Aubree Ensign, am a practicing Christian, and my belief is sincere and meaningful.

2. My Faith and my church has, over the years, extensively addressed issues related to
bodily integrity generally and vaccination specifically, including issues of voluntariness
and vaccine mandates.
3. Regarding COVID, the CDF(the Congregation for the Doctrine ofthe Faith) published a
"Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vacinnes" on December 21, 2020,
stating that:
a. COVID-19 vaccines that used cell lines originating from aborted fetuses are
morally compromised.(Note: The J&J vaccine "is an adenoviral vector grown
in the PER.C6 cell line that originated from a healthy 18-week-old aborted
chile The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were tested using the "morally
compromised HEK-293 cell line," originating from "a child aborted in the
Netherlands in 1972." As a Christian I have a moral duty to avoid use ofsuch
vaccines.
b. However, the moral duty "is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as
the otherwise uncontainable spread" of COVID-19
c. "In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the
common good may recommend vaccination."
d. "In such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective
can be used in good conscience."
e. "At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a
rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary."
f. "Those who,for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell
lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other
prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the
transmission ofthe infectious agent."
4. To summarize, the moral duty to avoid use ofthese three, or more, COVID vaccines is
not obligatory only if:
a. The spread of COVID-19 is otherwise uncontainable,
b. There is an absence of other means by which to stop or prevent the epidemic,
c. The vaccines are clinically safe, AND
d. The choice to receive a vaccine must be voluntary.
5. If any element is not satisfied, the moral duty to avoid using the vaccines is obligatory.
In which case, Western Michigan University's vaccine mandate violates my Christian
Faith.
6. Even if all elements were satisfied, a non-obligatory moral duty does not equate to me
taking a vaccine, much less authorizing a vaccine mandate. It merely means that, as a
Christian, I have the option to evaluate the evidence myself and make my own decision
whether to receive a vaccine; to repeat, "it must be voluntary." I can choose to not take a
vaccine.
7. Here, all four elements have yet to be satisfied.
8. The threshold issue is voluntariness: "vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and
therefore, it must be voluntary." This mandate violates my Christian Faith because it is,
by definition, not voluntary.
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM--3 ECF No. 15-17, PagelD.236 Rik—, 09/03/21 Page 5 of 6
9. Rather than a coercive mandate, Western Michigan University should emphasize the
virtue of Prudence, allowing each student to make a prudential decision whether to take a
COVID vaccine. Failing this, Western Michigan University should follow the science by
changing the mandate to acknowledge two additional "means by which to stop or prevent
the epidemic." Two additional forms of protection that are equivalent to or greater than
protection gained via some or all ofthe Covid vaccines:
a. Naturally acquired immunity via prior COVID infection and subsequent recovery;
and
b. Prophylactic Ivermectin, taken weekly in accordance with the FLCCC Alliance
protocol.(I have enclosed more information regarding Ivermectin)
10. Furthermore, there is evidence that the COVID vaccines are not clinically safe. The
AMERICA's FRONTLINE DOCTORs,et.al.v. XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary of the U.S
Department of Health and Human Services, et al, complaint mentions some of this evidence,
including Myocarditis and Pericarditis in young adults. My father did contract Myocarditis
AND Pericarditis from taking a medication and therefore puts my health more at risk due to
family history
11. The most concerning piece of evidence is a graph created using data from Pfizer (next page).
As background:
a. All three vaccines utilize the Spike protein. Recent studies 'I 2 indicate the Spike
protein alone (without coronavirus infection per se) is enough to cause damage,
inducing symptoms similar to catching COVID-19. This fact appears to have
come as a surprise to the vaccine developers.'
b. The three vaccines were designed to anchor the Spike protein to the cell; the
Spike protein was not supposed to flow freely in the blood. After injection, the
Spike protein was supposed to initially stay in and around the injection site, then
eventually end up in the liver to "get chewed up by various destructive
enzymes."'
12. However, the Pfizer data(chart on next page) show something different happening in
reality:
a. During the initial 8 hours after injection, the Spike protein is flowing freely in
both the blood plasma and whole blood. This indicates that the "anchoring' did
not work. This was not supposed to happen.
b. The Spike protein is then concentrating in both the ovaries and bone marrow. This
was not supposed to happen either. The Spike protein was supposed to end up in
the liver to "get chewed up by various destructive enzymes."
13. Thus far, there is only one year of data available on these three vaccines; nobody knows
what the long-term effects will be. This makes Point 14(b) particularly concerning.
Concentration of the Spike protein in the ovaries suggests infertility or birth defects as
long-term effects, and concentration in the bone marrow suggests leukemia or
autoimmune disorders.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902
2 httPSI/WWW.COntagiOnliVe.COM/VieW/SPike-PrOtein-Of-SarS-COV-2-VirUS-alOne-Can-CaUSe-
daMage-tOdUngS
3 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-save-the-world-in-three-easy-
steps/id1471581521?i=1000525032595
4 https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/05/04/spike-protein-behavior
4 https://www.vatican.va/roman curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc
con cfaith doc 20201221 nota-
vaccini-anticovid en.html
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/03/03/opinion-its-time-to-get-beyond-vaccines/
https://www.usccb.org/moral-considerations-covid-vaccines
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-Ss., ECF No. 15-1.7, PagelD.237 File. J9/03/21 Page 6 of 6
14. As a Christian, I support life. This position is not limited to opposing abortion; it extends
to opposing both COVID vaccines tested using aborted fetal cell lines and a vaccine
mandate that may, based on available evidence, cause infertility in females and/or birth
defects in future children.
15. Western Michigan University's vaccine mandate applies to both males and females. As a
Christian, I believe that any risk of infertility - for anyone - is an unacceptably high risk.
Forcing female students to take this risk by mandating vaccination when the safer
alternative of prophylactic ivermectin is available and known is unethical, inhumane,
illegal, and in violation of my Faith. Western Michigan University should eliminate its
vaccine mandate, but failing that, female students should be exempted from the mandate.
Organ bio-distribution study: post-vaccination total lipid concentrations, nil. George isrecd
Pfoof rifiNA Voccole B5f162,Pf -07307348
Obtained under freodom of information - iaponeso Heguiato,Ovum Boddie) Ottps:1161es.catbox moe/Omt,j.pdf
Ovaries get the mRNA shot:
13
in terms of the measured
12 free spike protein in blood, It
exists in equilibrium with
11
both source membrane
10 bound form (expressed in
cells) as well as(presumably)
9 ACE-2 bound form-
measured "free' plasma
3
spike measured likely
Blood Plasma
7 represents tip of iceberg
Is,
4 IS,
Bone Mitiini
0,25h lh 2h 4h 8h 24h 48h
l declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on _August 26th,
2021.
Aubree Ensign _08/26/2021

Name Date
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S,..., ECF No. 15-18, PageID.238 File._ J9/03/21 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S—) ECF No. 15-18, PagelD.239 File,. 09/03/21 Page 2 of 3
WESTERN
MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY
Name: Reilly Jacobson Job title/Student class: Grad School Student

Date of request: august 26, 2(6 WIN or Employee ID Number: 787545530
Immediate supervisor/instructor: Kathy Beauregard/ Keanah Smith
Exemption from Covid-19 vaccine
Length of time the accommodation is needed: 08/01/2023

l have spoke with the clergy and have been advised against it at this time.
Employee/Student signature: Reilly Jacobson Date: 08/26/2021
Adapted by a form created by cda.org Copyright()2021

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S—, ECF No. 15-18, PageJD.240 File- J9/03/21 Page 3 of 3

Exemption from COVID 19 Vaccine while participating in intercollegiate Athletic Sports
Campus Safety
Approved: Denied: X
of preference):
2. No participation in intercollegiate sports


Tammy Miller, Assoc. Director 8/26/21

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-..., ECF No. 15-19, PagelD.241 Pik_ 09/03/21 Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT R
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S ECF No. 15-19, PageID.242 FIIE J9/03/21 Page 2 of 7
Name: Taylor WilliamsStudent Job title/Student class: athlete

Immediate supervisor/instructor: Shane Clipfell
Exemption from vaccine
Continued Participation in athletics
Length of time the accommodation is needed: Length of scholarship

See attached letters
-Two exemption letters
-Recent antibody test(August 30th, 2021) Per tester, l was told my antibody count is still very high.

Keep my scholarship for all four years, antibody testing, continued covid testing weekly
documentation regarding my religious practice and belie to rther evaluate my request for a
Taylor Williams'4
Employee/Student signature: Date: 8/30/21
Please send completed form to: ole-infogwmIch.edu

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S , ECF No. 15-19, PagelD.243 File J9/03/21 Page 3 of 7

Campus Safety
Approved: Denied: X
of preference):


Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S—, ECF No. 15-19, PagelD.244 File_ J9/03/21 Page 4 of 7
Chaplin Nina Williams
RE: Taylor Williams
36158 McKinley
New Baltimore, MI 48047
248-461-7772
August 30,2021
Dear Western Michigan Administration,
My daughter Taylor Williams is seeking a Religious Exemption from Western Michigan University requirements
and mandates for covid-19 vaccination. As an ordained Chaplin and first responder for 9 years, this letter is to
serve as a formal notice that Western Michigan University's vaccination mandate for covid-19 is in direct
opposition to Taylors and our family's religious beliefs. Furthermore, it goes against biblical principles something
that is very sacred to us.
Our core religious beliefs is an individual relationship and discernment from the Holy Spirit, through prayer and
fasting. This is a personal relationship with the Lord that started out many years ago. Taylors love for Christ
teaches her to walk and move as he gives her guidance and not by man. She is well aware of the impacts of covid-
19, having contracted the virus and now has antibodies built up in her immune system. Taylor is providing test
results as evidence of this statement. Nonetheless, Taylor is requesting that her religious beliefs be respected,
just as she respects the choices of others. Taylor must have peace in every decision that she makes in her life;
because who she is, and what she does is governed by her relationship with Christ, and not by man. She knows
that there is accountability at the end of this journey, called life.
Taylor would like to continue working and performing as a collegiate athlete on the Women's Basketball Team to
the best of her ability, as she has demonstrated the last 2 years. She has given her all for Western Michigan
Women's Basketball and was widely recognized among the NCAA. Taylors belief and convictions about the covid-
19 vaccine are for her to act on as she is guided by GOD,and not for others to determine for her. We are
requesting that Western Michigan University demonstrate respect for her day-to-day free expression of worship
and faith by allowing her to continue performing on the Women's Basketball Team, as well as in the class room.
Without being coerced to do something that goes against her and our family's religious convictions. This is
something that has been held sacred in the United States and protected by our Constitution. We ask and hope
that you choose to stand by the free exercise and practice of religion, and not discriminate against her and our
family for our beliefs.
Sincerely,
Chaplin Nina Williams

441, d
6j
Taylor Williams //(it

se 1:2 -00757-PLM--,3 ECF No. 15-19, PagelD.245 09/03/21 Page 5 of 7
FRC /JAC Global Chaplain Network
Dr. Gennaro Plscopo - Chief of Chaplains - CEO

Dr. Vincent Cucchettl - Chief of Chaplains - COO
Dr. Sheri!' Cucchettl Plscopo - Chief of Chaplains - CFO
August 21, 2021
Re: Taylor Williams
To Whom It May Concern:

World Headquarters
284-C..41 Utica Road
Our(Williams) family's religious beliefs always put us on alert and are
Roseville. MI 480(56
suspicious when any authority, university or otherwise tries to impose mandatory
Telephone requirements on us in areas of faith or conscience. Throughout history a loss of

(586) /73-6588
respect for God-given dignity begins with requirements that don't respect the
Email freedom of faith beliefs and conscience. In the case of vaccines, we are convinced
virmy3
that the university or anyone should not impose medical interventions on an
individual, group or family. We demand respect for our faith and religious beliefs
Leadership Team
and to make our own choices. Freedom of religion and conscience dictates that we
Deputy Chief may refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination; our faith and
Colonel
Blair Cremecns conscience leads us to that decision. We believe a vaccination is not a moral
DIFOC-01 of Communica,twils
obligation and must be voluntary. We believe it is our moral duty to refuse the use
Deputy Chie! of medical products, including vaccines, that may be created using human cells
Colonel
David Edwards derived from abortion (our lifetime religious doctrine is we are against abortion)
Law Enforcement Liaison
We believe our religious faith and conscience dictates the assessment of whether
Deputy Chief the benefits of a medical intervention may outweigh the undesirable side-effects.
Colonel
Christine Rinn We believe we are morally required to obey our consciences and our religious
MOIL:icy Liaison
beliefs must be respected. We believe that this is our own religious judgment that
Deputy Chief Taylor should not be forced to receive a vaccine against our family's religious
Leutenant Colonel
James Friedman beliefs, that she should follow her own conscience and strong spiritual upbringing
Police and Fire Chiefs Liaison
and should not be penalized for doing so.
Deputy Chief
Lieutenant Colonel
Scot Mullen CC: Nina A. Williams Sincerely,
Missions
Deputy Chief
L;eitenant Colonel
Wendy Taliaferro Dr. Vincent Cucchetti
LLreGtor of OpefiitiOnS
ChiefofChaplains — COO
ChapCorps FRC/IA C Network
Visit Summary Report Page: 1 of 1
Pharmacist Name: MONKEVICH,TRACY

Contract: COVID-19 Physician Name: 0
service: ANTIBODY TEST Physician Fax: CD
PHARMACY RETAIL NETWORK
Visit Date: 08/30/2021 1-1
Statement prepared at: KROGER PHARMACY 01800724
Patient TAYLOR WILLIAMS
Date of Birth: 07/16/2001
Address 35000 23 MILE RD
36158 MCKINLEY O
NEW BALTIMORE, MI 48047 O
NEW BALTIMORE, MI 48047
586-725-6903
Phone: (586)339-7266 (.n
NPI#: 1285668053
213
1--
Metric
Case: 21-2945
Value Comment
PREGNANT No c.
PRESENTS WITH SYMPTOMS No
SARS COV2 IGG ANTIBODY POSITIVE
SARS COV2 IGM ANTIBODY NEGATIVE
Visit Summary:
Document: 10-9
917Z .C1196Qd '6T-ST '0N =1O3
CD
Filed: 09/27/2021
O
O
CA)
1-4
Page: 97
cD
CD
O)
harmacist Signature :
Next Appointment : 08/3012021 15:49
(171 of 297)
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-SJci ECF No. 15-19, PagelD.247 Fileu 09/03/21 Page 7 of 7
Cojer
.health
Resource - Patient Handout for COVID-19 Rapid Antibody Test

Thank you for completing a COVID-19 Rapid Antibody Test with Kroger Health!
ormatto
1,1 -)k f)3 Assure COVID-19IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device
nter.
.. •,,,, • • • c.
• . ,,•'3' c6M d Iti.0
z„,„....------Y\ou were likely infected with SARS-CoV-2 more The presence of antibodies indicates a previous
tftan a few weeks ago,even if no symptoms infection. Case reports of reinfection have been seen in
/ w re present. IgG antibodies are "late the literature,so it Is important to continue to practice
IgG a tibodies",largely responsible for long-term protective measures. If you develop new symptoms
itive mmunity after infection or vaccination. later, seek a diagnostic test,since occurrence of
reinfection has been observed. If you're notfully
vaccinated', you should getthe COVID-19 vaccine.
You were likely recently infected with SARS- The presence of antibodies Indicates a recent infection.
CoV-2. Your immune system is actively Case reports of reinfection have been seen in the
producing antibodies to an ongoing infection literature,so it Is important to continue to practice
0'gm that likely began more than 14 days ago. protective measures. We recommend seeking a
and IgG diagnostictest and isolating according to health
Positive authority guidance until test results are obtained. If the
diagnostic test is negative or once you've recovered
and met criteria to discontinue Isolation, you should get
the COVID-19 vaccine if you have not yet received it.
Vow-immune system is actively producing The presence of antibodies indicates a recent infection.
antibOdies to a recent Infection. IgM Case reports of reinfection have been seen in the
antibodies are "early antibodies"that develop literature,so it is important to continue to practice
first during acute infection and disappear after protective measures. We recommend seeking a
.igm a few weeks. In SARS-CoV-2infections, IgM and diagnostic test and isolating according to
health
Positive IgG antibodies can arise nearly simultaneously authority guidance until test results are obtained. If the
within 2 to 3 wee ks after illness onset.Thus, diagnostic test Is negative or once you've recovered
detection of IgM without IgG is uncommon. and met criteria to discontinue isolation, you should get
You may still be capable of spreading disease to the COVID-19 vaccine if you have not yet received
it.
others,even when asymptomatic.
_
This result may indicate different scenarios: Continue to practice protective measures and follow
• You neverhadSARS-CoV-2,or current guidelines. If you did not have symptoms on
• You may have been infected and test day and develop new symptoms later,seek a
• mounted a response with antibodies diagnostic test. If you're not fullyvaccinatedl,you
Negative below the level of detection,or should get the COVID-19 vaccine.
• You may have been recently infected
within the last 14 days and haven't
developed antibodies yet
In all cases,follow the guidance of your healthcare provider and local health department
. For more Information,visit:
ftttes://www.cdcsov/soronavIrus or www.coronavIrussov. Fully vaccinated Is defined by
the CDC as 2 weeks after the 2nd dose of a two-dose
vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna) or two weeks after a one-dose vaccine (Johnson &Johnson).
il Confidential
05/25/2021 — v. 4
Printed copies are for reference only.
Refer to the electronic copy for the latest version.
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S.,d ECF No. 15-20, PagelD.248 Fileo 09/03/21 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT S
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S,3 ECF No. 15-20, PagelD.249 File 09/03/21 Page 2 of 4
WESTERN
MICHIG AN
UNIVERSITY
Name: Kaeyn
l Parker
Job title/Student class: Dance Team
Immediate supervisor/instructor: Michaela Anson
Covid Vaccine
Length of time the accommodation is needed: Indefinitely

https://docs.google.com/document/u/2/d/109-nVGfONzsvbScU7w1DhTZDXbUcR_qUedit
https://docs.google.com/document/u/2/d/1N-qp6y3mYqf39KBTqinEtc3m5141bid2V10vJCUTaGE/edit
https://docs.google.com/document/u/2/d/1oK91-M/VmTIE5PXBBE4CNU-bLEEYJ6sb3p/edit

Willing to take Covid Tests
Parker
Employee/Student signature: KaelynD 12/27/2001
ate:

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM- ,.,L3 ECF No. 15-20, PagelD.250 File... 09/03/21 Page 3 of 4

Campus Safety
Approved: Denied: X
of preference):


Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-. ECF No. 15-20, PagelD.251 Flit.. 09/03/21 Page 4 of 4
August 2, 2021
To Whom It May Concern:
I have legal/constitutional and also medical/scientific reasons for objecting to the COVID vaccination
mandate, as well as my strong religious reasons, which I will focus on for this exemption.
The research to develop these (so-called) vaccines has been proven to have used fetal tissue from
aborted babies. I am a total pro-life advocate and volunteer for many Right to Life and church pro-life
activities. The Catholic Church teaches, and I personally believe, "that the use of human embryos or
fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who
have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born,just as to every person." (St. Pope John Paul
II, Evangelium Vitae) This quote raises two issues. The first is the immorality of using aborted fetal tissue
to develop the vaccine, and therefore the immorality of taking a vaccine developed with aborted fetal
tissue. That should be obvious to any Catholic that is serious about their faith, as I am.
The second issue is the unethical practice of coercing me or any other person to participate in medical
experimentation. These COVID "vaccines" are experimental DNA therapy drugs, and those who are
vaccinated are participating in the largest medical experiment in the history of the world. Unfortunately,
many are uneducated to this fact. The government and frankly, Trinity Health have crossed an unethical
line of privacy and religious freedom by coercing this experimentation on people without their full
informed consent.
In short, the vaccines go against my religious morals to be involved in any way with drugs that are
developed with the use of aborted fetal tissue, and also to be coerced into being part of a medical
experiment for a drug that has serious proven and hypothetical side effects.
I would hope you accept and approve my exemption.
Sincerely,
Kaelyn Parker
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-:._ 3 ECF No. 15-21, PageID.252 Fit 09/03/21 Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT T
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLJ ECF No. 15-21, PagefD.253 Fitt_ 09/03/21 Page 2 of 9
WESTERN
MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY
Name: Annalise James

Job title/Student class: Junior
Date of request: 8-27-21 WIN or Employee ID Number: 665901563
Immediate supervisor/instructor:
To continue training and competing at Western Michigan University in Women's Cross Country
and Track with full use of my scholarship funds without being vaccinated for COVID-19.
Length of time the accommodation is needed: indefinitely

Please see additional paper.

In order to prevent potential transmission of infection, I will wear a mask, and practice social distancim
I will quarantine myself and immediately be tested for COVID-19 should I exhibit any symptoms.
sincerely held. l understand that the accommodation requested above may not be granted but
undue hardship on the University. l understand that the University may need to obtain supporting
rewled
....67natae 8-27-21

Case 1:21.-cv-00757-PLM-L 3 ECF No. 15-21, PagelD.254 Flit_.. 09/03/21 Page 3 of 9

Campus Safety
Approved: Denied: X
of preference):
2. No participation in intercollegiate sports


Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-L,_.3 ECF No. 15-21, PageID.255 Fllt 09/03/21 Page 4 of 9
I practice the Christian faith and the belief that the scriptures outlined in the Word of God, the
Bible, are the blueprint for how I should live the life given to me by God. Within the context of
these beliefs, I believe that I must choose carefully what substances I allow placed in my body,
which is reflected in my lifestyle every day. Since according to Scripture, my body is a temple of
the Holy Spirit, I have carefully determined how I will eat, what I will refrain from in my social
time, and what vaccinations or medications I will allow to be placed in my body. I do not take
any decisions concerning to be or not be vaccinated lightly; just as I do not take any other means
of care of my body lightly. I believe that God has given me a sound mind to make informed
decisions pertaining to my health. My Christian beliefs also include Providence, which means
that God controls the destiny of everyone, including their conception, birth, death, sickness, and
health. I do not have all the answers to life's questions; however, I know that I trust God, His
Word, and my own obedience to His commands above all. As a college athlete as well as
someone who is in good health, I cannot in good conscience permit myself to be forced to be
vaccinated with spike proteins, which are in essence not in line with what the definition of a
vaccination is and which I have received in all other occasions throughout my life. I additionally
already had and recovered well from COVID-19 when I contracted it last year. There is
significant documentation concerning previously healthy young adults who have suffered
debilitating health effects since being vaccinated. As a child of God who has long term goals to
marry, have children, and continue to care for my body well, it is in direct violation of my
Christian faith that I willingly allow myself to be forced to have a new and experimental vaccine
injected to my body forever, following a virus, that even to this date is constantly evolving and
changing. The CDC has a warning on these vaccinations, which states that a side effect may be
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-L J ECF No. 15-21, PageID.256 FilL 09/03/21 Page 5 of 9
heart damage in young adults. Because I am running on scholarship and have done my due
diligence to care for my body so I may be a member of the Western Michigan XC and Track
teams, it completely contradicts all efforts made, if I am placing myself at cardiac risk as a
runner. Additionally, there are genetic predispositions to high blood pressure, blood clots, heart
attacks, aneurisms, and immune systems disorders on both my paternal and maternal sides of the
family. I believe that this vaccine has potential serious side effects which may place my life at
long term risk and/or may cause my dreams of having children at risk.
Just as I respect one's choice to be vaccinated, I expect my choice to not be vaccinated to be
respected as well. As an athlete at Western, I have been told for months that I will receive support
whether I choose to receive the vaccine or not. I live by my faith very seriously. Western as
always been accepting of my beliefs and faith. But the Covid-I9 vaccine being mandated
threatens my ability to obediently follow scripture, concerning my responsibility to care for the
body God has given me.

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-- 3 ECF No. 15-21, PageJD.257 Fi►,., 09/03/21 Page 6 of 9
Scriptural References
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is
in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you
were bought at a price; therefore, glorify God in your body and in your
spirit, which are God's.
1 Corinthians 11:28-30
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink
of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and
drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this
reason, many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.
2 Timothy 1:7
For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a
sound mind.
Deuteronomy 28:58-63
"If you do not carefully observe all the words of this law that are written
in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, THE
LORD YOUR GOD, then the LORD will bring upon you and your
descendants extraordinary plagues—great and prolonged plagues—and
serious and prolonged sicknesses. Moreover He will bring back on you all
the diseases of Egypt, of which you were afraid, and they shall cling to
you. Also every sickness and every plague, which is not written in this
Book of the Law, will the LORD bring upon you until you are destroyed.
You shall be left few in number, whereas you were as the stars of heaven
in multitude, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your
God. And it shall be, that just as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you
good and multiply you, so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you
and bring you to nothing; and you shall be plucked from off the land
which you go to possess.
1 Corinthians 9:27
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-L _3 ECF No. 15-21, PagelD.258 File 09/03/21 Page 7 of 9
But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have
preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.
Galatians 6:7
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that
he will also reap.
Romans 8:31-35
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be
against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us
all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall
bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who
condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is
even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who
shalt separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or
persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Psalm 139: 13-18
13 For you created my inmost being;

you knit me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,

I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts,[1 God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand—
when I awake, I am still with you.
Matthew 6:24-34
"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love
the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You
cannot serve God and mammon. "Therefore I say to you, do not worry
about your life, what you will eat or what you wilt drink; nor about your
body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more
than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-. 3 ECF No. 15-21, PageID.259 Fig_., 09/03/21 Page 8 of 9
nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not
of more value than they? Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to
his stature? "So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of
the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you
that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Now
if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is
thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, 0 you of little
faith? Therefore do not worry, saying,'What shall we eat?' or What shall
we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For after all these things the Gentiles
seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But
seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things
shalt be added to you. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for
tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own
trouble.
Jeremiah 30:17
For I will restore health to you and heal you of your wounds.
Exodus 15:26
I harken diligently to the voice of the Lord My God and I do that which is
right in his sight. I give ear to his commandments and I keep all of his
statues, and he puts no disease upon me for he is The Lord who has
healed me.
Deuteronomy 7:15/Psalm 91:10-

The Lord has taken sickness away from me and given me a full life span.
Matthew 8:17
Jesus took my infirmities and he bore all my diseases.
Romans 8:11
The same spirit that raised Christ from the dead lives in me. And he that
raised Christ from the dead has brought to my whole being, yes even to
my mortal body new strength and vitality.
1 Peter 2:24
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM 3 ECF No. 15-21, PagelD.260 Fig 09/03/21 Page 9 of 9
Who his own self bore my sins in his own body of the tree that I being
dead to sin, am now alive to right standing with God with whose stripes I
was healed, made whole and made complete.
Psalm 103:1-6
A Psalm of David. Bless the LORD,0 my soul;
And all that is within me, bless His holy name!
Bless the LORD, 0 my soul,
And forget not all His benefits:
Who forgives all your iniquities,
Who heals all your diseases,
Who redeems your life from destruction,
Who crowns you with lovingkindness and tender mercies,
Who satisfies your mouth with good things,
So that your youth is renewed like the eagle's. The LORD executes
righteousness
And justice for all who are oppressed.
Proverbs 2:6-9
For the LORD gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding;
He stores up sound wisdom for the upright;
He is a shield to those who walk uprightly;
He guards the paths of justice,
And preserves the way of His saints.
Then you will understand righteousness and justice,
Equity and every good path.
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-: 3 ECF No. 15-22, PagelD.261 Fig_ 09/03/21 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT U
DowSign Entlugam6arcytyyt”taaA n.._
M Y- 39(k erNo. 15-22, PagelD.262 09/03/21 Page 2 of 5
WESTERN
MICHIGAN
-- UNIVERSITY
Name: Maxwell Huntley Job title/Student class: Junior

Immediate supervisor/instructor:
Deeply held religious belief - Observance
Length of time the accommodation is needed: 3 years

Please see attached
religious accommodation. c--DocuSigned by:
Employee/Student signature: A/490 Wa hi/461

—81692580A556428...
Date: 8/30/2021

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-, 3 ECF No. 15-22, PagelD.263 Fi, 09/03/21 Page 3 of 5

Exemption from COVID 19 Vaccine while participating In Intercollegiate Athletic Sports
Campus Safety
Approved: Denied: X
of preference):
2. No participation In Intercollegiate sports


Institutional Equity representative signature: Adam Wall, Assistant Director Date: 8/31/21
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-L 3 ECF No. 15-22, PagelD.264 Fii. 09/03/21 Page 4 of 5
The Law Office

Of
JAMES A. THOMAS,ESQUIRE
Attorney and Counselor at Law
1925Breton Rd SE Suite 2.50 Phone:(616)747-1188
Grand Rapids, Ml. 49506 jimmy@finunythontaslaw.com
August 29,2021
To: Western Michigan University Exemption Committee

At Issue: Immunization with Covid 19 vaccination
RE: Maxwell Huntley
Dear WMU,
I have been retained by Mr. Huntley to facilitate his efforts of an exemption based on his first
amendment rights offreedom of religion. The attached letter written by Mr. Huntley is safeguarded
under the principles ofthe first amendment that is a sincere personal belief through his relationship
with God. The submitted letter is a sincere religious beliefand by definition cannot be disproven. We
understand this committee could ask general questions in regard to the exemption, however, we will
not answer personal medical history follow up questions which violate HIPAA and his privacy of
medical history. Factually, any person could have an epiphany at any moment and be saved according
to the law ofthe bible John 3:16. There is no time limit for being saved until you actually pass away,
then it is too late. What a person did 5 days ago or 5 years ago is irrelevant when someone is a reborn
Christian according to the bible. I am addressing this committee before you make such inquiries of
my client and attempt to force questions to put in doubt my client's sincerely held religious beliefs.
The law of Michigan and Federal law does not require a clergy, rabbi, priest or other holy persons to
corroborate Mr. Huntley's sincere personal religious beliefs. We will take immediate legal action
should this exemption not be granted. Michigan has a State Civil Rights Act. A denial ofthe
exemption is a violation of the Elliot-Larsen civil rights act of Michigan discriminating against Mr.
Huntley's freedom of religion. This act allows Mr. Huntley to directly file a lawsuit against the
committee members individually, the University or both. This does not preclude Mr. Huntley from
filing a complaint with the EEOC as well. Any denial of this exemption will cause immediate and
irreparable harm with incalculable damages. An individual lawsuit with a jury demand will be filed
seeking hefty monetary damages without hesitation.
This student has every intention of being amicable and cooperative with the committee or individual
evaluator in its effort to make the right decision about his religious exemption. We are attempting to
mitigate the damages of a lawsuit by way of this letter in an effort to avoid litigation and getting Mr.
Huntley into sports, class or anywhere else on campus that is mandating a vaccine contrary to his
religious beliefs. We thank you for your consideration on Mr. Huntley's religious exemption.
I will be happy to communicate with any of the parties involved or legal counsel should the need arise.
This letter will serve as final notice of our intention to file a lawsuit for religious discrimination upon
a denial of Mr. untley',s exemption.
Sincerely,
James A.Thom. ,Esquire

'imm omaslaw.com
Enclosure: Religious Exemption letter

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLW... 3 ECF No. 15-22, PagelD.265 09/03/21 Page 5 of 5
To whom it may concern,
l hereby assert my right to a religious exemption from vaccination. I am a Christian who

believes in the Bible and these are my sincerely held religious beliefs. I am objecting to Covid-
19 vaccines because I believe in and follow God and the principles laid out in His Words and l
belief that vaccines violate them. l believe that all human beings are image bearers of God. l
believe a physical body is given to each of us by our loving Heavenly Father. He created it as a
tabernacle for our spirit to assist each of us in our quest to fulfill the full measure of our
creation. 1 Corinthians 3:16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that
God's Spirit dwells in your midst? 1 Corinthians 3:17 if anyone destroys God's temple, God will
destroy that person: for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that temple. Simply put,
God intends us to take care of our bodies by keeping impurities and unnatural substances out
of it. We are to provide the tabernacle with cleansing just as you would clean your own house
for a visitor. The difference is God and the Holy Spirit dwell there and as a Christian it is a sin to
defile what belongs to God and to break your promise of obedience to Him. Blessed are all
who fear the Lord, who walk in obedience to him. Psalm 128:1. Therefore, l urge you, brothers
and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to
God—this is your true and proper worship. Romans 12:1. Do not merely listen to the word,
and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. James 1:22. Taking the James 1:22 into account in
its plain meaning, there is nothing arbitrary about"Do what it says." l sincerely believe the
words that are given to us by God and am obedient to them, otherwise it is a sin. This
mechanism for altering my God given body does harm to my conscience and body. l believe in
and follow God and the principles laid out in His Words and l belief these vaccines violate them.
l sincerely believe it to be a sin to dishonor God in any unpleasing way. l cannot take the Covid
19 vaccine and respectfully request that you honor my sincerely held beliefs and grant this
exemption.
Sincere in my beliefs,
Maxwell Huntley
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-L...3 ECF No. 15-23, PagelD.266 Fitt—, 09/03/21 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT V
Case 1:21-c. J0757-PLM-SJB ECF No. 15-23, F...gelD.267 Filed 09/03/21 Page
Fart 1: To be completed by employee/student
Name: Sydney chafer Job title/Student class:'"`

Date of request: 8/31/21 WIN or Employee ID Number 00823*
Immediate supervisor/instructor. Shane CliPfell
religious exemption

Describe the religious belief or practice that necessitates this request for acc
additional pages,if needed):
I am snatching 3 documents, One being a letter from me to you, my pastor,
letters It states my religious beliefs. Thank you for taking the time to read the
religious exemption.
My religious beliefs and practices, which result in this request for a religious a
sincerely held. I understand that the accommodation requested above may
that the University will attempt to provide a reasonable accommodation tha
undue hardship on the University. I understand that the University may need t
documentation regarding my religious practice and beliefs to further evalual
Employee/Student signature: Sydney

- Shafer Dc
Case a....1.-cv-00757-PLM-SJB ECF No. 15--,, PagelD.268 Filed 09/03/23.
Religious Acconvriodation Request Form l 2of2
part 2: To be completed by WMU institutional Eaulty office:

Exemption from COVID 19 Vaccine while Parlicloatina in intercollegiate Athli
CamDus Safety
Approved: Denied: X
If the requested accommodation is denied, what are some alternative acct
of preference):
1. Maintain Scholarship for 2021-2022,ff any
2. No pcifffcipation in intercollegiate sports
Date discussed with employee/student: Emalled to student 4/31/2Q21

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM- ECF No. 1.5-23, PagelD.269 Fitt— 09/03/21 Page 4 of 5
To whomever reading this letter,
My name is Sydney Shafer, and l am a junior on the Western Michigan's women's basketball
team. When reading this letter, l ask that you try to fully understand where l am coming from.
Growing up my family was and still to this day is not very religious. l always believed in God, but
it wasn't until l came to Western that l fully understood the path that God put me on and who
he was/ is to me. My freshman year I joined Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA), like many
others at this school and truly developed a strong pull to further my relationship with God.
After growing a foundation and meeting so many amazing people, l decided to get baptized on
May rd of this year. Within 3 years at Western, l completely changed who l was as a person
and what l stood for all because of my relationship l have with God. With this vaccine mandate l
have been praying that you allow me to get the religious exemption. Fertility is something that
God gave me that l do not want to jeopardize. l hope to have children one day and getting this
vaccine would jeopardize that considering that we do not know the long term affects this
vaccine places in our bodies. l also do not want to put anything unnatural in my body and
jeopardize what God made me to be. l feel convicted in my spirit and faith that this is
something that God is not leading me to do, and l am pleading you do not make me get this. l
have followed covid protocols all last year and will continue to do so this year. l know that you
are making tough decisions on if you will allow or not allow student athletes to get this. But
please remember that you are making decisions for adults, and my voice on my body should be
heard and will be heard. l feel very strongly about this and l know that God feels this way about
me too.
Thank you,
Sydney Shafer
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S„, ECF No. 15-23, PagelD.270 File.. J9/03/21 Page 5 of 5
iniSPRINGPORT
NIP BIBLE CHURCH
To whom it may concern:
The free exercise of religious beliefs and practices is a right of conscience enshrined in the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, every state constitution, and in many state and
federal laws. This fundamental liberty is central to what it means to be an American and must be
preserved and protected for every generation.
I have been informed that Sydney Shafer has submitted a request for religious exemption from the
Western Michigan University student athlete COVID vaccine directive. As an ordained pastor of the
Gospel, serving as a pastor for over two decades, I can speak to the sincerity of Sydney's beliefs and
the legitimacy of this request. Sydney shared that upon being made aware of Western Michigan
University student athlete directive to receive the COVID vaccine, she began to search the Scriptures
as to how she should respond, and whether she should accept the shot.
Sydney is a strong Christian who believes the Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God. When
Jesus Christ ascended to heaven after His resurrection, He promised to send his Holy Spirit, who would
guide us into all truth. Each believer in Christ receives the Holy Spirit, who leads the individual in their
walk with God. We encourage every believer in making important decisions for their lives to seek the
wisdom of the Holy Spirit through prayer and Scripture reading. At Springport Bible Church we teach
that in all matters of daily life and action believers should follow their conscience, as informed by the
written Word of God, and the leading of the Holy Spirit as people of faith, we strongly believe in the
Biblical sanctity of human life and the prohibition from the shedding of innocent blood. Many Christians
understand this prohibition to include ingesting or benefiting from products derived from or using
aborted fetal cell lines.
The Bible also states that our bodies function as the temple of the Holy Spirit within us, and that we
should glorify God in our body.(1 Cor. 6:19-20).
Sydney strongly believes that based on the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, to inject these COVID
shots would violate these sincerely held religious beliefs and would be a sin against God.
As an ordained minister, I believe Sydney's religious convictions are sincere, and well-grounded in
Scriptures. To violate conscience by doing an act contrary to these sincerely held religious beliefs is
itself sinful. I strongly support a religious exemption and accommodation for Sydney Shafer.
In service of the Lord Jesus Christ,
Pastor Matthew Rohde
August 30, 2021
Springport Bible Church

240 Mechanic Street
Springport Mi, 49284
(517)652-4740
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S.„3 ECF No. 15-24, PagelD.271 File,. 09/03/21 Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT W
RELIGIOUSACCOMMODATION REQUEST
FORM
Name, anielle
Natte
Job titte/Studen class: Dance

Team
Date of request. 8/25121
WIN or Employee ID Nun e
Immediate supervisor/instructor: 4u Michaela

Anson
Requested accommodation exemption), Covid 19

vaccine exemption

Indefinitely
Describe the religious belief or practice that

necessitates this request for accommodation (include
additional pages. if needed):There are many reasons
for the religious exemption:
To'Whom It May Concern:

.
hRve tegarecirtititutional ;m41 also mialicallwiemitic (cask-vac, for old to
the COVII) mandfaC, svell 11% my strong rezisons,.
%.,11 LAI I will fii.eth, on fo: this exemption.
114,!
- 0'i:scotch ti) ilerclop these (so-calIct.l) hecri proven to !rave
f4.131 tiSlitie front :./bortc(I I aril a tom! advo-cate anti
volutr.ei...r for nmy IZight to I anti i;ltitrc j)ro-life a(ti vines, hc Catholie
Church teactic...s, and I per:itinally 1:idieve, "that 1114, use of human emhryos or
f+.1.u....cA :is an cihject i i-onlititutes <t crialtv 414,
,nity
it F.- bein,gs who a right to tlie same respt:t owed to a child since
th)rni inst its to person." (St,('ope kim ENargclitint Vitaoythis
raises IWO 1S5LieS. Ttie. first is the inInlorality ()fusing 'aborted fetal IiSS110
ell t!'
. .. • ''
As example of my religious convietiot s are as

follows but eau be expanded with many paragraphs for
many More reasons,
1. As a Roman Catholic my body is my temple

and dwelling place (Attie Iioly Spirit of God
who is also known as the third inember of the
trinity.
• The Apostle Paul addresses this matter
clearly in 1 Corinthians, 6;19-20 when he
.i.vriies, "or do you not know that your
body is a temple of the lioly Spirit
within you, whom you have from God?
You are not your Own, for you were
bought with a price, So, glorify God in
your body.- It is clear that, ultimately,
my body belongs to the I.ord. It is Ins
dwelling place, Therefore, I have a
responsibility to be watchful and careful
regarding‘vhat I do with my body, how I
use my body, and even, what I allow intk A
my body. I ant strongly convicted to not

allow these Covid-19 vaccines into my
body, which is the dwelling place of the
I holy Spirit of God.
As a follower of,lesus I believe that life begins

at conception, I believe that using prcborn fetal
tissue in the manufacturing process of vaccines
misaligns with God's purpose for human life. I
believe as a f011owcr of Jesus Christ; we. as
believers should preserve the sanctity of life and
not cooperate unriglneousness. I believe that
every mother womb should be sacred and a
safe place for every developing baby. Vaccine
manufacturers and the abortion industry are
both expuiting precious life in the womb 1-or
profit.. • — •f- s the word of
"-•
2. As a follower of Jesus I believe that life begins

at eoneeption, I believe that using preborn fetal
tissue in the numnfactu ring, process of vaccines
misaligns with God's purpose for human life. I
believe as a foflower ofJesos Christ; we us
believers should preserve the sanctity of life and
not cooll•crate unrightcousncss. I believe ihat
.every mother's \vomb should be sacred and a
afe place for every developing baby. 1\eacein
manufacturers and the abortion industly are
both expoiting, precious life ut the womb tOr
profit, Where science contradicts the word of
Cod:
• MRC-5:Lting tissue of a 14 \veek old
aborted baby.
V18, Lung tissue of a 3 mouth
gestation baby girl
• 11F K-293:Derived from the kidney
tissue ofaborted baby, sex unknown
• PF.R.-C.6:1 Inman cell culture line derived
from the retinal tissue ()fan 1$ week
gestation bahy, sex unknown
• Psahn 139:13-1(1"For you formed my
inward parts;you knitted me together in
my mother's womb, I praise you, for I
am feat folly and wonderfully made.
Wondcrrul are your works;my soul
knows it voy well. My frame was not
hidden from yon,when 1 was being
secret, intricately woven in the depths of
the. earth. Your eyes suw my ',informed
substance; in your book were written,
every one of thern, the days that were
formed for me, when as yet there was
none of them"
• Job 33:4 "The spirit of God has made
rue, and the breath of the Almighty gives
me lire." And in the Psalm 119;73a
" s, TIRTRISIMUN -•• •
1:52
Describe any alternate accommodations that might

address your needs: l am willing to do a saliva
covid-19 test as needed but not a swabbing test
My religious beliefs and practices, which result in this

request for a religious accommodation, are sincerely
held. l understand that the accommodation requested
above may not be granted but that the University will
attempt to provide a reasonable accommodation that
does not create an undue hardship on the University. l
understand that the University may need to obtain
supporting documentation regarding my religious
practice and beliefs to further evaluate my request for a
Employee/Student signature: Danielle Natte
Date: 8/31/21

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-L 3 ECF No. 15-24, PagelD.277 Fik 09/03/21 Page 7 of 9
Notarized Affidavit of Religious Belief for Exemption from COVIO Vaccination
1) I, Danielle Natte, am a practicing Catholic, and my belief is sincere and meaningful,

2) The Catholic church has, over the centuries, extensively addressed issues related to bodily integrity
generally and vaccination specifically, including issues of voluntariness and vaccine mandates.
3) Regarding COVID In particular, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) published d
"Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines"' on December 21, 2020, stating that:
a) COVID-19 vaccines that used cell lines originating from aborted fetuses are morally
compromised.(Note: The AI vaccine "is an adenoviral vector grown in the PER.C6 cell line that
originated from a healthy 18-,week•old aborted child." The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were
tested using the "morally compromised HEK-293 cell line," originating from "a child aborted In
the Netherlands in 1972."') Catholics have a moral duty to avoid use of such vaccines.
b) However, this moral duty "is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise
uncontainable spread- of COVID-19.
c) "In the absence of other means to stop or evenprevent the epidemic, the common good my
recommend vaccination."
d) "In such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good
conscience."
e) 'At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not,as a rule, a moral
obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary."
f) "Those who,I.,.I for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from
aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by ether prophylactic rneans and apprilariate
behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent."
4) To summarize, the moral duty to avoid use of these three COVID vaccines is not obligatory only if:
a) The spread of COVID-19 Is otherwise uncontainable,
b) There is an absence of other means by which to stop or prevent the epidemic,
c) The vaccines are clinically safe, and
d) The choice to receive a vaccine must be voluntary.
5) If Ey element is not satisfied, the moral duty to avoid using the vaccines is obligatory. In which case,
Western Michigan University's vaccine mandate violates my Catholic faith.
6) Even if all elements were satisfied, a non-obligatory moral duty does not equate to me taking a
vaccine, much less authorizing a vaccine mandate. It merely means that, as a Catholic, I have the
option to evaluate the evidence myself and make my own prudential decision whether to receive a
vaccine; to repeat, "It must be yoluntary." I can choose to not take a vaccine, in which case I must
"avoid, by other prophylactic means arid appropriate behavior, becoming (a) vehicle for the
transmission of the infectious agent."
/) Here, all four elements have yet to be satisfied.
8) The threshold issue is voluntariness: "Vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and
therefore it must be voluntary." Phis mandate violates my Catholic faith because it is, by definition,
not voluntary.
9) Rather than a coercive mandate, Western Michigan University should emphasize the virtue of
Prudence, allowing each student/employee to make a prudential decision whether to take a COVID
vaccine_ Failing this, Western Michigan University should follow the science by changing the
!"1..Ps•'11vvill-Y.PC614n-,̀Vi_foritir(uLt.a../1QPii.ZILdtionlielil.t.P.PteZcunlenf7,L. c0f,(11P01 4:2(: .:LtiC;1):1

C 14
{:r2C•t2_,Z11._L'••01141
kg? li.Y.V 44 P.:PC 0.1NT
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-L. ECF No. 15-24, PagelD.278 Fik 09/03/21 Page 8 of 9
mandate to acknowledge two additional "means by which to stop or prevent the epidemic," two
additional forms of protection that are equivalent to or greater than protection gained via some or
all of the three COVID vaccines:
a) Naturally acquired immunity via prior COVID infection and subsequent recovery; and
b) Prophylactic ivermectin, taken weekly in accordance with the FLCCC Alliance protocol.`
10) Consistent with the COF note, I am willing to take the most effective 'other prophylactic means" as
an alternative to vaccination: ivermectin taken weekly as a prophylactic, per the FLCCC Alliance
protocol. Regarding ivermectin's efficacy against COVID,as both prophylaxis and treatment, please
see the full 47-page meta-analysis which is at https://ivmmeta.com/.
11) If Western Michigan University decides to acknowledge the ivermectin evidence and allows this
form of protection as an alternative to vaccination, l am willing to sign something weekly verifying
that I am taking the medication.
12) Furthermore, there is evidence that the three COVID vaccines are not clinically safe. The AMERICA'S
FRONTLINE PocroRs,et al, v. XAVIER BECERRA,Secretary of the US. Department of Health and
Human Services, et al. complaint mentions some of this evidence, including myocarditis and
pericarditis in young men, per the CDC.'
13) The most concerning piece of evidence is a graph created using data from Pfizer (next page). As
background:
a) All three vaccines utilize the Spike protein. Recent studies`'' indicate the Spike protein alone
(without coronavirus infection per se)is enough to cause damage, inducing symptoms similar to
catching COVID-19. This fact appears to have come as a surprise to the vaccine developers.°
b) The three vaccines were designed to anchor the Spike protein to the cell; the Spike protein was
eat supposed to flow freely in the blood. After Injection, the Spike protein was supposed to
initially stay in and around the injection site, then eventually end up In the liver to "get chewed
up by various destructive enzymes."'
14) However, the Pfizer data (chart on next page)show something different happening In reality:
a) During the initial 8 hours after injection, the Spike protein is flowing freely In both the blood
plasma and whole blood. This indicates that the "anchoring" did not work. This was not
supposed to happen.
b) The Spike protein Is then concentrating in both the ovaries and bone marrow. This was not
supposed to happen either. The Spike protein was supposed to end up in the liver to "get
chewed up by various destructive enzymes."
1S) thus tar, there lc only ono year of data available on these three vaccines; nobody knows what the
long-term effects will be. This makes Point 14(b) particularly concerning. Concentration of the Spike
protein in the ovaries suggests infertility or birth defects as long-term effects, and concentration in
the bone marrow suggests leukemia or autoimmune disorders.
16) As a Catholic, I support life. This position is not limited to opposing abortion; it extends to opposing
both COVID vaccines tested using aborted fetal cell lines and a vaccine mandate that may, based on
available evidence,cause infertility in females and/or birth defects In future children.
4 I)t!Pl://spvid19cr t ic a re.com/coviii- 19-protocols/

htips://www.cdc.govecoronavirus//019-ncovivaccingl/safetv/my9carditis.html
6
Ottasj/www.ahajournals.oradoigullL10.1161/CIRCRESAHA,121,318902
httos://www.contagionlive.comiview/spike-protein-of•sars-cov--virus-alone-can-cause-darrlime-to-lungs
8 https://podcasts.apple.cornius/podcast/how-to-save-the-world•in-three-eati-
5teps/id 07158152ri=1000525032595
https://trIcifts,SCienCemag.or v./pipeline/re di yea/2021/05/04/spike-protein -behavior
Page 2 of 3
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-,...., ECF No. 15-24, PagelD.279 Filt. 09/03/21 Page 9 of 9
17) Western Michigan University's vaccine mandate applies to both males and females. As a Catholic, I
believe that any risk of infertility - for anyone • is an unacceptably high risk. Forcing female
students/employees to take this risk by mandating vaccination when the safer alternatrve of
prophylactic iverrnectin is available and known is unethical, inhumane, illegal, and in violation of my
Catholic faith. Western Michigan University should eliminate its vaccine mandate, but failing that,
female students/employees should be exempted from the mandate.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed o 2021
Nome
State of A Ic41 t,1

y .1 kr-1 t
I here by certify that on this day cif __A , 2021, ore me, the sub-sc.nber, a
notary public in arid for the aforesaid jurisdiction, personalty appeared fejt ift
known to me, and executed the foregoing affidavit, and made oath in due form of law, under the
penalties of perjury, that the affidavit is his/her act arid deed, that the matters and facts herein
contained are true to the best of his/her knowledge
PAUL DYKSTRA, Notary Public Notary Public

My Commission expires State of Michigan, County of Ottawa
My Commission Expires 1 1/1 1/2026
Acting in th. Courtly of it e'tfr
Page 3 of 3
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-- _ 3 ECF No. 15-25, PagelD.280 Fit,. 09/03/21 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT X
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-,_ 3 ECF No. 15-25, PagelD.281 Fil— 09/03/21 Page 2 of 6
WESTERN
MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY
Name: Katelyn Spooner Job title/Student class: Senior

Date of request: 8/29121 WIN or Employee ID Number: 55652664'1
Immediate supervisor/instructor: Coach Filipek, Coach Batten
To be able to continue practicing and competing on the cross country and track and field team.
Length of time the accommodation is needed: 2.5 Years

See attached PDF and Word document.

I am willing to be Coivd tested as the school sees fit.
Spooner
Employee/Student signature: KatelynDate:8/29/21

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-L 3 ECF No. 1.5-25, PagelD.282 Fii, .. 09/03/21 Page 3 of 6

Campus Safety
Approved: Denied: X
of preference):
Date discussed with employee/student: Emalied to student 8/30/2021


Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-- _ 3 ECF No. 15-25, PagelD.283 Fii, 09/03/21 Page 4 of 6
First Harvest
ministries Presenting the Corning Kingdom
From The Desk of the General Counsel of First Harvest Ministries
RE: Written on behalf of those who share our religious objections.
To Whom It May Concern.

Reaching back into the long history of the American principle of religious deference and respect,
we find an unbroken chain of the rule and the sacred consideration of conscientious religious
objection; even our great military affords such respect to American Citizens in times of battle.
This letter is urgently written on behalf of those devout Christians of America, who believe that
the Word of God forbids us to accept certain things and entities into our bodies, as our bodies are
the living temple of the Holy Spirit. And as such, to ask us to violate these Commandments of
our God would force us to choose between human science, so-called, versus our undying faith in
the written commands of God! Our complete reverence and devotion is not the frailty of human
government but instead to The Almighty Yahweh of Israel. The God by Whom we were created
and to Whom we have given the whole of our lives.
We have vowed by our sacred honor to live according to His instructions in the beauty of
Holiness. Whereas when the governments of men do not ask us to violate these deeply held
truths, we gladly yield and obey.
We refer you to several verses ofscripture for our claim of religious objection. In so doing, we
would remind you of a time in the future when most of these claims will be brought before the
courts when the heat of the moment(The Covid Crisis) gives way to the bedrock principles of
the Constitution. Legal precedence proves, In the past, many companies have made the same
mistake. While under the pressure of the moment, they gave no serious regard for religious
objection nor the future consequences thereof. They have later wished to undo these ill-advised
decisions; that violated religious conscience; it never fails; the religious objection is the right of
all Americans.
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-- 3 ECF No. 15-25, PagelD.284 Fi, 09/03/21 Page 5 of 6
These verses are just a few of many that we lay claim to in our Christian faith.
Leviticus 11:1-47
Deuteronomy 14:1-29
Genesis 7:2
Romans 12:1
1- Whereas we do not know the long-term consequences ofthe Covid Vaccine

2 - Whereas we do not understand its long term effects on our bodies (Gods Holy Temple)
We are forced to err on the side of spiritual caution and refuse to harm our temples in honor of
God's Holy Word.
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution has protected these exact claims before the Supreme
Court on many occasions. Even State governments have faced this glaring truth during the Covid
crisis. They attempted to pass mandates and laws that violated this fundamental principle, only to
have their wrong decisions righted before the Courts, with financial penalties.
While, as Christians, we strive to be at peace with all men and to obey all laws and mandates
from a legitimately elected government. We do not do so in violation of God's Holy Laws, of
which the protection of my body is one ofthose spiritual laws that supersedes all manmade laws
in my religious conscience.
As an Ordained Christian Bishop, we respectfully present this letter on behalf of those members
of our faith for your consideration.
Warmest Christian Regards;
J. Shane Vaughn, Th.D.

Founding Bishop
First Harvest Ministries International
FIRST HARVEST MINISTRIES INTL.

Address: 235 Old Spanish Trail
Waveland, Ms 39576
Email: brothervaughn@gmail.com
Website: www.firstharvestchurch.org
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-, 3 ECF No. 15-25, PagelD.285 R. 09/03/21 Page 6 of 6
My name is Katelyn Spooner. l am a transfer to WMU and will be a senior. l transferred
to WMU for the numerous amounts of opportunities available academically and athletically. l
participated in cross country and track and field at the varsity level at my previous college for
three years. This past year has been extremely difficult mentally and emotionally not being able
to compete and live life like it once was. Prayer and trust in God have gotten me through this
difficult period of life.
My sincerely held belief is that God created my body, and that God forbids putting
anything in my body that would harm it. We do not know the long-term effects of this vaccine
on the reproductive system. My family means everything to me. l hope to have my own
someday and l am reluctant to get this vaccination as it may put this dream in jeopardy.
l had Covid-19 in September 2020, completely healed, and recovered on my own. With
this experience, l know l have the strength of natural immunity through God's blessing. l refuse
to harm my body with a vaccine that we do not know the long-term effects of. Therefore, l am
requesting a religious exemption because l believe that God created my body, and He would
not want me to harm His creation and the opportunity for procreation.
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S, ECF No. 15-26, PagelD.286 File, 9/03/21 Page 1 of 10
EXHIBIT Y
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S. ECF No. 15-26, PagelD.287 Fil6 i9/03/21 Page 2 of 10
0 WESTERN
MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY
Name: Nicole Morehouse Job title/Student class: Freshman

Immediate supervisor/instructor: Coach Makiba Batton
I would like to request a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine.
Length of time the accommodation is needed: Present-Undetermined

See attached documents.

Willing to take reasonable measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in place of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.
Nicole Morehouse
Employee/Student signature: Date: 8/31/20
Adapted by a form created by cda.org Copyright@ 2021

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S, ECF No. 15-26, PagelD.288 FilE. J9/03/21 Page 3 of 10
Approved: Denied*
of preference):
1.
2.
3.


Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S ECF No. 15-26, PagelD.289 Ric J9/03/21 Page 4 of 10
To whom it may concern,
My name is Nicole Morehouse. I am a freshman at Western Michigan University, and

through much hard work and sacrifice, I have earned a spot on the women's cross country team.
Not even a week and a half after arriving on campus,I am faced with what seems to be an
impossible decision. Three weeks prior to the writing of this letter, WMU informed all athletes,
coaches, training staff, and anyone else involved in WMU athletics that they must begin the
process of vaccination against COVID-19 by August 31, 2021, or forfeit their opportunity to
continue attending practices, competitions, and all in-person events for WMU athletics.
Ultimately, for me this decision requires me to choose between forfeiting my place on the WMU
women's cross country team, or compromise my deeply held religious beliefs and convictions.
I recognize and understand the intent and good faith in requiring all athletes to receive the
COVID-19 vaccine in order to continue participating in his or her respective sport, but I believe I
cannot receive this vaccine without going against very fundamental principles of Christianity.
As explained in an article published on August 18, 2021 by Nebraska Medicine, COVID-

19 vaccines manufactured by Pfizer, Moderna,and Johnson & Johnson utilized cell lines
descended from the bodies of aborted fetuses. The vaccines developed by both Pfizer and
Moderna used fetal cell line HEK 293 as professionals researched and developed the respective
vaccines. Similarly, the Johnson and Johnson vaccine benefitted from the use of fetal cell line
PER.C6 during both the production and manufacturing stage.
As a protestant Christian, I believe that abortion is undeniably against all Christian

doctrines.
Psalm 139:13-16' details the intricate specificity God put into the creation of each human
life, even in the womb. And later in Jeremiah 1:5, God discloses to the prophet Jeremiah,
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart."
These verses are used to establish the belief that a fetus is a valuable human life, even
inside the womb. I believe that every life is valuable, and it is unethical to deny any person--in
the womb or otherwise--his or her undeniable right to life.
For this reason, I believe that abortion is equivalent to murder, which goes against the
most fundamental Christian principles.
Exodus 20:13 commands,"You shall not murder," as the sixth commandment God gave
His people. Proverbs 6:16-172 states,"hands that shed innocent blood" are one of seven things
the Lord detests.
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S ECF No. 15-26, PagelD.290 File J9/03/21 Page 5 of 10
For me to willingly receive the COVID-19 vaccine, I would have to compromise my

beliefs and go against these explicit instructions that I have received from God through the Bible
by supporting a vaccine manufactured through the benefit of human beings being murdered, and
dismissing.
I recognize that requiring all WMU athletes to receive the COVID-19 vaccine is made
with the intent to protect others from becoming infected with COVID-19, but vaccination is not
the only way to minimize the spread of COVID-19. Taking certain precautions is certainly
Biblical, as in Deuteronomy 22:8, the Israelites are commanded,"When you build a new house,
make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your house if
someone falls off the roof."
However, I strongly believe that receiving the COVID- I 9 vaccine does not fall within the
parameters of building a metaphorical parapet in order to minimize the spread of COVID-19,
because it first and foremost goes against a greater commandment given by Jesus.
In the gospel of Matthew—chapter 22 verses 36-40--one oldie Pharisees quizzed Jesus

about the greatest commandment from God:
"'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' Jesus replied:'Love the
Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the frr•st
and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself." All the
Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'"
While receiving the COVID-19 vaccine may be a way of"building a parapet", it is my

personal conviction that it is not a biblical decision because it directly defies God's command to
love one another, which Jesus teaches as being above all other commands found in the Bible.
Other actions that I am willing to take that could act as this parapet in the context of
COVID-19 include wearing a mask indoors, regularly washing my hands, maintaining proper
social distancing, being tested as often as necessary--even daily--among other actions.
In addition to defying God's command to love one another, there are health risks
accompanying receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. The following excerpt has been taken from the
website for the Center of Disease Control, updated on August 20, 2021:
"[The] CDC is actively investigating reports of people developing myocarditis

(inflammation of the heart muscle) after receiving a mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-
BioNTech or Modem). Most of these people fully recover, but information is not yet available
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S ECF No. 15-26, PagelD.291 FilE. J9/03/21 Page 6 of 10
about potential long-term effects. Understanding long-term health effects is critically important
to explaining the risks and benefits of COVID-19 vaccination to the public and informing
clinical guidance."
As reported by the JAMA Network on August 4, 2021, forty hospitals in the states of
Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Los Angeles County, California provided records of patients
receiving the COVID-19 vaccine on May 25, 2021 or earlier. 2,000,287 individuals who
received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine were observed. Twenty individuals were
reported to have developed vaccine-related myocarditis, and 37 individuals had developed
vaccine-related pericarditis. The mean number of myocarditis cases per month rose from 16.9 to
27.3 from the pre-vaccination period to the vaccination period. The mean number of pericarditis
cases per month rose from 49.1 to 78.8, respectively.
The same article reports that vaccine-related myocarditis is a stronger concern for
younger patients than older patients receiving the vaccine. Moreover, Oxford Medicine, as well
as many other sources, report that myocarditis poses an even higher risk in those that participate
in regular strenuous exercise.
In the book, The ESC Textbook ofSports Cardiology, published by Oxford Medicine in
May 2019, authors Martin Halle and Michael Schindler detail that,"Mild forms of myocarditis
or perinvocarditis are more likely to be involved [for individuals participating in prolonged
strenuous exercise], because of their relatively high prevalence in athletes."
In the book, European Journal ofPreventive Cardiology, published by SAGE

Publications and reported by Oajord Academics, a study performed on mice to observe the
relation of exercise and the development of myocarditis is detailed. In the study, there was "a
threefold increase in the number of cytotoxic T-cells when exercise was initiated after 48 hours
of viral infection, and an augmented myocardial necrosis, accompanied by significantly
increased mortality in most but not all studies," as reported by SAGE Publications.
These studies show that 1, as a young athlete, am already at a higher risk of developing
myocarditis as a response to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. And when you take into account
that I have a family history of heart issues--paternal grandmother had a cardiomyopathy, paternal
grandfather has a pacemaker, and maternal grandmother suffered a heart attack--I could
potentially be at an even higher risk of developing vaccine-related myocarditis.
Even more, my paternal grandfather has previously had a negative reaction to certain
prescription drugs, which is cause for higher concern when receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S ECF No. 15-26, PagelD.292 File )9/03/21 Page 7 of 10
There are obvious secular concerns associated with these types of risks, and such
concerns should not be discredited when set beside the concerns associated with spread of
COVID-19. Rather, they should be taken with equal weight as these concerns affect my health as
much as COVID-19 can affect any person's health.
But my concerns about developing myocarditis as a result of receiving the COVID-I9

vaccine don't end with secular reasoning.
In 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, the apostle Paul writes to the people of the church in Corinth,
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you
have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor
God with your bodies."
This is an instruction that I take very seriously. Christians are called to take care of our
bodies as best we can, and willingly receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, knowing the risk that it
poses for me to develop rnyocarditis, would be to defy this explicit instruction from God's Word
to care for my own body.
Lastly, research shows that contracting COVID-19 is much more effective at protecting
against the virus than receiving a vaccine because the vaccine is designed to minimize
symptoms, not prevent transmission.
An article published by Fortune on August 27, 2021 details research done by Israeli
researchers. The results are as follows: "People given both doses ofthe Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine
were almost six-fold more likely to contract a delta infection and seven-fold more likely to have
symptomatic disease than those who recovered."
There is an abundance of research to support the statement that contracting COVID-19 is

much inore effective in fighting off the virus than receiving a vaccine. I contracted COVID-I9 in
late April 2021, so I any already better suited to fight COVID-I9 than someone who is fully
vaccinated.
In a recent meeting with Brian Bauer, assistant athletic director of medical services at
WMU,Bauer acknowledged that the COVID-19 vaccine is not intended to stop the spread of
COVID-19, but rather to minimize its effects. Roll Call reports that infection rates among
vaccinated individuals are surging along with rates among unvaccinated individuals. The article
published on July 30, 2021 reiterates what Bauer stated: the purpose ofthe COVID-19 vaccine is
to minimize the number of hospitalizations and deaths among COVID-19 patients, rather than to
prevent the virus from spreading.
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S ECF No. 15-26, PagelD.293 File J9/03/21 Page 8 of 10
I, as a young, healthy individual, am not at risk of being hospitalized or dying due to

COVID-19. By receiving the vaccine, I would not be at a lesser risk of contracting and spreading
COVID-19, and my chances of having a severe reaction to contracting the virus virtually would
not change.
I sincerely hope this letter was effective in communicating my personal and spiritual
convictions against receiving the COVID-I9 vaccine. On the following page, I have attached the
Scriptural evidence used within this letter to support my claims.
I have also attached a letter written by Pastor Jacob Riggs of Central Oaks Community
Church in Royal Oak, Michigan, where I have attended for the past several years following my
move to Royal Oak. This letter affirms that I am a practicing and devout Christian and active
member at Central Oaks.
I respect the decision made by WMU administration as well as the intent behind that
decision. However, I cannot, in good conscience, willingly receive the COVID-19 vaccine. I
hope that WMU will recognize the hard work that I, along with other student athletes, have put
into both our athletic and academic careers in order to get to where we are, as well as what we
are able to offer to WMU,and be willing to grant an accommodation for those convicted against
receiving the vaccine.
Thank you,
Nicole Morehouse
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S ECF No. 15-26, PagelD.294 FilE. J9/03/21 Page 9 of 10
1 "13For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. "I praise you
because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
15My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in that secret place, when I was woven
together in the depths of the earth. 16Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for
me were written in your book before one of them came to be," Psalm 139:13-16.
2"16There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to Him: ... hands that shed
innocent blood ..." Proverbs 6:16-17.
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-S, ECF No. 15-26, PagelD.295 File ,9/03/21 Page 10 of 10
CENTRAL OAKS
It% III
August 30, 2021
Central Oaks Community Church

2005 Rochester Rd.
Royal Oak, MI 48073
centraloaks.com
To Whom It May Concern,
Let it be known that Nicole Morehouse is a member of Central Oaks Community Church in
Royal Oak, MI and has been a devout and practicing Christian in our church up until she
moved to attend Western Michigan University a few weeks prior to the writing ofthis letter.
Central Oaks Community Church is a Protestant, evangelical church affiliated with the
National Association of Free Will Baptists, recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)3. Every member
of our church has publicly agreed to our statement of faith and church covenant.
I have known Nicole for several years and can attest to the genuineness of her faith in Jesus
Christ and devotion to Him. The members of Central Oaks agree by continuing to recognize
her membership.
I am happy to send this letter and also happy to answer any questions anyone may have. My
email address and cell phone number are listed below.
In Christ,
r
Pastor Jacob Riggs
Email:jacobPcentraloaks.com
Phone: 248.835.9106
ATTACHMENT H

SOUTHERN DIVISION
EMILY DAHL, HANNAH REDOUTE, EX-PARTE MOTION

BAILEY KORHORN, and MORGAN FOR TEMPORARY
OTTESON, RESTRAINING ORDER AND
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiffs,
EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
-vs- REQUESTED
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WESTERN CASE NO.:

MONTGOMERY,President of WMU;KATHY HON.:
BEAUREGARD,WMU Athletic Director; and
TAMMY L. MILLER,Associate Director
Defendants.

David A. Kallman (P34200)
Stephen P. Kallman (P75622)
Lansing, MI 48917
(517)322-3207
EX-PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION REQUESTED
Pursuant to Rule 65 ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, Plaintiffs, Emily Dahl, Hannah
Redoute, Bailey Korhorn, and Morgan Otteson (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"), by and
through undersigned counsel, hereby move this Court for a Temporary Restraining Order(TRO)
(ex parte), immediately enjoining the enforcement ofDefendants' mandated Covid-19 vaccination
requirements as applied to Plaintiffs.

Expedited consideration is necessary because the harm to Plaintiffs is occurring now, and
it is irreparable. Defendants have stated that it is their intent to permanently kick Plaintiffs off of
their intercollegiate athletic teams on August 31, 2021, if they are not vaccinated before that date.
This harm is set forth in greater detail in the accompanying brief and is supported by the attached
Affidavits (Exhibits J, K, L, and M).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the Court immediately issue the requested TRO (ex
parte) to maintain the status quo, and then set an expedited schedule for briefing on the separate
but related request for a preliminary injunction, at which time opposing counsel will have the
opportunity to respond in full. Time is of the essence.
Pursuant to Rule 65(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7.1,
Plaintiffs were unable to speak with Defendants' counsel as it is unknown who will represent
Defendants prior to making this TRO request. The Court should issue the requested TRO
immediately and without further notice to any party for all the reasons stated herein and in the
attached brief in support.
Plaintiffs were notified of Defendants' rejection of their religious accommodation request
on August 25 and 30, 2021. Plaintiffs obtained legal counsel in the evening on Friday, August 27,
2021, and this lawsuit was filed on Monday, August 30, 2021.
For all the reasons stated in the attached Brief in Support, Plaintiffs respectfully request
that this Honorable Court grant their Motion and issue a Temporary Restraining Order against
Defendants as outlined in the attached proposed order.
2
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court immediately issue the
requested TRO pending a hearing on whether a broader preliminary injunction should issue.
GREAT LAKES JUSTICE CENTER
Isl David A. Kalltnan

David A. Kallman
Stephen P. Kallman
Erin E. Mersino
Jack C. Jordan
Counsel.for Plaintiffs
I hereby certify that on August 30, 2021, a copy of the foregoing Ex-Parte Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order, with Brief in Support and Exhibits, was filed electronically with
the Court. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties for whom counsel has entered an
appearance by operation of the court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing
through the court's system.

David A. Kallman
-3
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-SJB ECF No. 2-2, PageID.85 Filed 08/30/21 Page 1 of 2

SOUTHERN DIVISION
EMILY DAHL, HANNAH REDOUTE, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

BAILEY KORHORN, and MORGAN ORDER
OTTESON,
Plaintiffs,
-vs-
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WESTERN CASE NO.:

MONTGOMERY,President of WMU;KATHY HON.:
BEAUREGARD,WMU Athletic Director; and
Defendants.

David A. Kallman (P34200)
Stephen P. Kallman (P75622)
Lansing, MI 48917
(517)322-3207
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Upon the motion of Plaintiffs Emily Dahl, Hannah Redoute, Bailey Korhorn, and Morgan
Otteson (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs") pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and for good cause shown:
It is hereby Ordered that Defendants, the Board of Trustees of Western Michigan
University, Edward Montgomery, Kathy Beauregard, and Tammy L. Miller, and their officers,
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-SJB ECF No. 2-2, PagelD.86 Filed 08/30/21 Page 2 of 2
agents, and employees (collectively referred to as "Defendants"), are temporarily enjoined from
enforcing the mandated COVID-19 Vaccination Policy as follows:
(1) Defendants are enjoined from enforcing their COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement
Policy against Plaintiffs or to take any action against Plaintiffs because of their
vaccination status.
(2) Defendants are enjoined from requiring that Plaintiffs be vaccinated prior to
participating in any intercollegiate sporting activities.
(3) As a reasonable accommodation, Plaintiffs shall submit to reasonable weekly COVID-
19 testing to be provided by Defendants.
This Order shall remain in effect until the Parties can be heard on Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction or upon further notice, but not to exceed 14 days, unless the Court extends
the time for good cause. The hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction will be held before
this Court on at am/pm. Defendants are directed to file any written
responses on or before
IT IS SO ORDERED this day of August, 2021 at am/pm.
United States District Court Judge
2
ATTACHMENT I

SOUTHERN DIVISION
EMILY DAHL,et al, )

Plaintiff, )
) No. 1:21-cv-757
-v- )
MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY,et al., )
Defendants. )
)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiffs are fbur members of the women's soccer team at Western Michigan
University (WMU). On August 12, 2021, around 6 p.m., the Athletic Director fbr WMU,
Defendant Kathy Beauregard, sent a text requiring all individuals involved in the athletic
department, including student athletes, receive one of the COVID-19 vaccines by August 31,
2021. (ECF No. 1-2 PageID.20.) Plaintiffs each submitted requests for religious
accommodations explaining that their sincerely held religious beliefs would be compromised
if they were to receive the required vaccination. WMU denied all four requests, asserting
the University's "compelling interest" and explaining that "prohibiting unvaccinated
members of the team from engaging in practices and competition is the only effective manner
of accomplishing this compelling interest." (See, ECF No. 1-9 PageID.48.) WMU's
responses state that the players will not be able to participate in intercollegiate sports. WMU
also states that the players will not lose their scholarship for the academic year.
Plaintiffs sued alleging constitutional and statutory violations. Plaintiff's request a
temporary restraining order.' (ECF No. 2.) The Court will grant Plaintiffs' request.
Decisions regarding a temporary restraining order are within the discretion of a
district court. See Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner, 543 F.3d 357, 361 (6th Cir. 2008).
Under Rule 65,a court may issue a temporary restraining order, without notice to the adverse
party, only if two conditions are met. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). First, the moving party must
establish specific facts through an affidavit or a verified complaint or affidavit showing that an
immediate and irreparable injury will result to the moving party before the adverse party can
be heard in opposition to the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Second, the counsel for
the moving party must certify in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why
notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). In addition, the court must
consider each offour factors:(1) whether the moving party demonstrates a strong likelihood
ofsuccess on the merits;(2) whether the moving party would suffer irreparable injury without
the order;(3) whether the order would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the
public interest would be served by the order. Ohio Republican Party, 543 F.3d at 361
(quoting Northeast Ohio Coalition). The four factors are not prerequisites that must be met,
but are interrelated concerns that must be balanced together. See Northeast Ohio Coalition,
467 F.3d at 1009.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 2) and an ex parte
motion for a temporary restraining order(ECF No. 3).
A. Procedural Requirements
Plaintiff's have met the procedural requirements. Plaintiffs filed a verified complaint.
(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs have alleged that they will suffer an irreparable injury befbre
Defendants can be heard in opposition to the motion. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants will "permanently kick Plaintiffs off of their intercollegiate athletic teams on
August 31,2021,if they are not vaccinated belbre that date." (ECF No.2 PageID.2.) WMU
denied one of the requests on August 30, the same clay Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit and the
day befbre the deadline. (ECF No. 1-3 PageID.23.) Under these circumstances, the Court
finds the lack of notice to WMU excusable.'
B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Ordinarily, WMU's vaccination requirement for its athletes, which includes an
exemption for religious beliefs, would be subject to rational review. See Klaassen v. Trustees
°finch:ma Univ., —F.4th—,2021 WL 3281209, at *1 (7th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021)(citingJacobson
v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)). Here, Plaintiffs were den/cc/an exemption for their
religious beliefs. Accordingly, the Court considers whether the denial of the requested
exemption violates, as Plaintiff's assert, the free exercise of religion.
The Free Exercise Clause in our Constitution provides protections against a law that
"discriminate against some or all religious belief's or regulates or prohibits conduct because
it is undertaken for religious reasons." Church ofthe Lukund Babalu Aye, Inc. E 04'of
Within the motion,and not as a separate certification, Plaintiffs' counsel states that they were
unable to speak with Defendants' counsel because they did not know who would represent
Defendants. (ECF No. 2 PagelD.65.) Plaintiffs' counsel, as experienced litigators, should know
better. WMU,like most other public universities, has an office of General Counsel and its phone
number is readily accessible.
Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520,532 (1993)); see Bible Believers v. Wayne ay., Michigan, 805 F.3d
228, 255-56 (6th Cir. 2015) (en bane) ("The right to free exercise of religion includes the
right to engage in conduct that is motivated by the religious beliefs held by the individual
asserting the claim."). "Where a challenged law is neutral and of general applicability and
has a merely 'incidental effect' on Plaintiffs' religious belief's, Defendants need not show a
compelling governmental interest." Resurrection Sch. r. Herta, —F.4th—, 2021 WL
3721475, at *11 (6th Cir. Aug. 23, 2021)(citing City offkileali„508 U.S. at 531).
Laws that discriminate against religious practices will be invalidated unless "justified
by a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to advance that interest." Roberts v. Neace,
958 F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting City ofHialeah, 508 U.S. at 553). When laws
"infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation, the law is not
neutral." GotofHthleali„508 U.S. at 533. When law forces an individual to choose between
following her religious beliefs or Ibrfeiting benefits, the law places a substantial burden on
the individual's free exercise of religion. Living Water Church ofCod v. Charter Trip. of
Meridian, 258 F. App'x 729, 734 (6th Cir. 2007). And,"la] law is not generally applicable if
it 'invite Isr the government to consider the particular reasons Ibr a person's conduct by
providing a 'mechanism fbr individualized exemptions."' Tarlton v. City ofPhiladelphia,
Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1877 (2021)(citation omitted).
Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits of the Free Exercise
Claims. Plaintiffs have established that. WMU's vaccination requirement is subject to strict
scrutiny. On the record befbre this Court, and understanding that WMU has not been
afforded an opportunity to response, WMU's vaccination requirement fbr student athletes
is notjustified by a compelling interest and is not narrowly tailored.
First, WMU must establish the compelling reason for its actions. WMU denied
Plaintiffs' request for religious exemption. Courts review denials of individualized requests
for a religious exemption to determine if the government entity haul a compelling reason.
Meriweather v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 514-15 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing City ofHialeah, 508
U.S. at 537.) WMU has asserted that it has a compelling reason, albeit in a perfunctory
manner. WMU appears to conclude that unvaccinated players pose a risk to the health of
the vaccinated players.
Second, WMU must explain why the decision to remove the unvaccinated players
from intercollegiate competition is narrowly tailored. Plaintiffs c(nitelid that WMU does not
require all students to be vaccinated.' Plaintiffs contend that WMU permits unvaccinated
students to participate in intramural sports and eat in cafeterias. (ECF No. 2-1 PageID.8.)
And, while the University of Michigan and Michigan State University require students to be
vaccinated, those who are granted religious exemptions must undergo weekly testing and
must wear face coverings. (Id.)
C. Other Factors
Having found a likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiff's Free Exercise Claim,
the balance of the factors weighs in favor of emergency injunctive relief. Where parties seek
On August 12, 2021, WMU President Defendant Edward Montgomery mandated weekly
testing for unvaccinated students and employees. littp//wmielLedn/covid-19/messages (last visited
August 31, 2021).
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PAM-SJB ECF No. 7, PageID.124 Filed 08/31/21 Page 6 of 7
injunctive relief and allege a constitutional violation, the outcomes "often turn on the
likelihood of success on the merits, usually making it unnecessary to dwell on the remaining
three factors." Roberts, 958 F.3d at 416 (citation omitted.)
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order.
(ECF No. 2.)
1. Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on their claim that WMU's denial
of a religious exemption from vaccine requirement- for its student athletes violates Plaintiffs'
right to the free exercise of religion.
2. Defendants are enjoined from enforcing a COVID- 1 9 vaccine requirement against
Plaintiffs. Defendants may not prevent Plaintiffs from participating in team activities 14 the
reason that Plaintifk have not received a COVID-19 vaccine. So long as Plaintifk have not
received a COVID-19 vaccination, Defendants may require Plaintiffs to submit to COVID-
19 testing weekly or more frequently and may also require Mil it ills to wear face coverings
3. Plaintiffs must serve Defendants with a copy of the summons, complaint, both
motions for a temporary restraining order, and this Order. Plaintiffs must serve Defendants
as soon as practicably possible, and no later than NVednesday, September 1, 2021, at 5 p.m.
Plaintiff's must file proof of service.
4. Defendants may file a response to Plaintiffs' motion by Friday, September 3, 2021.

5. Plaintiffs may file a reply to Defendants' response by 12:00 p.m. (noon) on
Tuesday, September 7, 2021.
6. The Court will hold a hearing concerning a preliminary injunction beginning at
1:30 p.m. on Thursday, September 10, 2021, at 174 Feder;i1!ding, 410 W. Michigan
Ave., Kalamazoo, Michigan.
7. The temporary restraining order takes effect at 1:30 p.m. on August 31, 2021, and
will expire approximately fburteen (14) days later. The Court may issue an order at or
following the hearing for a preliminary injunction either convertin the temporary restraining
order to a preliminary injunction or ending the temporary restriiniiig order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 31, 2021 /s/ Paul 1.. Maloney

Paul I,. Maloney
[hilted States District Judge

SOUTHERN DIVISION
EMILY DAHL, et al, )

Plaintiff, )
) No. 1:21-cv-757
-v- )
MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY,et al., )
Defendants. )
)
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEM PORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER
Plaintiffs are four members of the women's soccer team at Western Michigan
University(WMU). On August 12, 2021, around 6 p.m., the Athletic Director for WMU,
Defendant Kathy Beauregard, sent a text requiring all individuals involved in the athletic
department, including student athletes, receive one of the CO V11)-19 vaccines by August 31,
2021. (ECF No. 1-2 PageID.20.) Plaintiff's each submitted requests 14 religious
accommodations explaining that their sincerely held religious beliefs would be compromised
if they 1,were to receive the required vaccination. WMU denied all four requests, asserting
the University's "compelling interest" and explaining that "prohibiting unvaccinated
members ofthe team from engaging in practices and competition is the only effective manner
of accomplishing this compelling interest." (See, e.g., ECF No. 1-9 PageID.48.) WMU's
responses state that the players will not be able to participate in intercollegiate sports. 'WMU
also states that the players will not lose their scholarship for die academic year.
Plaintiffs sued alleging constitutional and statutory Violations. Plaintiffs request a
temporary restraining order.' (ECF No. 2.) The Court will grant Plaintiff's' request.
Decisions regarding a temporary restraining order are Ividfin the discretion of a
district court. See Ohio Republica]] Party r. Brunner, 543 F.3d 357, 361 (6th Cir. 2008).
Under Rule 65,a court may issue a temporary restraining order, without notice to the adverse
party, only if two conditions are met. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). First, the moving party must
establish specific facts through an affidavit or a verified complaint or affidavit showing that an
immediate and irreparable injury will result to the moving party before the adverse party can
be heard in opposition to the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Second, the counsel for
the moving party must certify in writing any ell4ts made to give notice and the reasons why
notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). In addition, the court must
consider each of four factors:(1) whether the moving party demonstrates a strong likelihood
of success on the merits;(2) whether the moving party would sufkr irreparable injury without
the order;(3) whether the order would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the
public interest would be served by the order. Ohio Republican Party, 543 F.3d at 361
(quoting Northeast Ohio Coalition). The 'bur factors are not prerequisites that must be met,
but are interrelated concerns that must be balanced together. Sce Northeast Ohio Coalition,
467 F.3d at 1009.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 2) and an ex party
motion for a temporary restraining order(ECF No. 3).
A. Procedural Requirements
Plaintiffs have met the procedural requirements. Plaintiffs riled a verified complaint.
(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs have alleged that they will suffer alt irreparable injury before
Defendants can be heard in opposition to the motion. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants will "permanently kick Plaintiffs off of their intercollegiate athletic teams on
August 31,2021, if they are not vaccinated before that date." (I'1(..T No. 2 PageID.2.) WMU
denied one of the requests on August 30, the same day Plaintiff's filed the lawsuit and the
day before the deadline. (ECF No. 1-3 PageID.23.) Under thee circumstances, the Court
finds the lack of notice to WMU excusable.'
B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Ordinarily, WMU's vaccination requirement for its athletes, which includes an
exemption for religious beliefs, would be subject to rational review. Scv Kbassen v. Trustees
ofIndthna Unit., —F.4th—,2021 WL 3281209, at *1 (7th Cir. i\lig. 2, 2021)(citingJacobson
v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)). Here, Plaintiffs were dcuiedan exemption for their
religious beliefs. Accordingly, the Court considers 'whether the denial of the requested
exemption violates, as Plaintiffs assert, the free exercise of religion.
The Free Exercise Clause in our Constitution provides protections against a law that
"discriminate against some or all religious beliefs or regulates or prollibits conduct because
it is undertaken for religious reasons." Church athe Lukunn Ave, Inc. v. City of
Within the motion,and not as a separate certification, Mini col n iscl states that they were
unable to speak with Defendants' counsel because they did not kiim• who would represent
Defendants. (ECF No. 2 PageID.65.) Plaintiffs' counsel, as experienced litigators, should know
better. WMU,like most other public universities, has an office of General Counsel and its phone
number is readily accessible.
Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520,532 (1993)); see Bible Believers v. 11/.7.171C AliChigall, 805 F.3d
228, 255-56 (6th Cir. 2015) (en bane) ("The right to free exercise of religion includes the
right to engage in conduct that is motivated by the religious heliek held by the individual
asserting the claim."). "Where a challenged law is neutral and of general applicability and
has a merely 'incidental effect' on Plaintiffs' religious beliefs, Defendants need not show a
compelling governmental interest." Resurrection Sch. —F.4th—, 2021 WL
3721475, at *11 (6th Cir. Aug. 23, 2021)(citing Qv ofHialcal 508 I J.S. at 531).
Laws that discriminate against religious practices will be invalidated unless "justified
by a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to advance that crest." Roberts Neace,
958 F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting City ofHialeah„508 '.S. at .553). When laws
"infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation, the law is not
neutral." CitvofHiakah„508 U.S. at 533. When law forces an individual to choose between
following her religious beliefs or forfeiting benefits, the law places a substantial burden on
the individual's free exercise of religion. Living Mater Church or Cod v. Charter Trip. of
Meridian, 258 F. App'x 729, 734 (6th Cir. 2007). And,"la] law is not generally applicable if
it 'invite[s]' the government to consider the particular reasons for a person's conduct by
providing a 'mechanism fbr individualized exemptions.'" Pri/twi r. City ofPhiladelphia,
Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1877 (2021) (citation omitted).
Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits of the Free Exercise
Claims. Plaintiffs have established that WMIts vaccination requirement is subject to strict
scrutiny. On the record befbre this Court, and understanding that 'VVMU has not been
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PAM-SJE3 ECF No. 8, PageID.130 FiIr1 3/31/21 Page 5 of 7
afforded an opportunity to response, WMII's vaccination requirement for student athletes
is notjustified by a compelling interest and is not narrowly tailored.
First, WMU must establish the compelling reason for 115 actions. WMU denied
Plaintiffs' request for religious exemption. Courts review denials of individualized requests
for a religious exemption to determine if the government- entity 11;1(1 a compelling reason.
Meriureather v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492„514-15 (Gtli Cir. 2021) (citing Cio,of Hialeah, 708
U.S. at 537.) WMU has asserted that it has a compelling reason, albeit in a perfunctory
manner. WMU appears to conclude that unvaccinated players pose ;i risk to the health of
the vaccinated players.
Second, WMU must explain why the decision to remove the unvaccinated players
from intercollegiate competition is narrowly tailored. Plaintiffs contend that WWI does not
require all students to be vaccinated.' Plaintiffs contend that WNII permits unvaccinated
students to participate in intramural sports and eat in cafeterias. (1-VF No. 2-1 PageID.8.)
And, while the University of Michigan and Michigan State t IniversitY require students to be
vaccinated, those who are granted religious exemptions must undergo weekly testing and
must wear face coverings. (M)
C. Other Factors
Having fbund a likelihood of success on the merits of Plait Free Exercise Claim,
the balance of the factors weighs in favor of emergency injunctive relief. \V here parties seek
On August 12, 2021, WMU President Defendant Edward Montgomery mandated weekly
testing for unvaccinated students and employees. littp//wmiefredukovid-19/messages (last visited
August 31, 2021).
injunctive relief and allege a constitutional violation, the outcomes "often turn on the
likelihood of success on the merits, usually making it 111111CCCSSarV to dwell on the remaining
three factors." Roberts, 958 F.3d at 416 (citation omitted.)
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order.
(ECF No. 2.)
1. Plaintiff's have established a likelihood of SUCCCSS 011 I 1C ir claim that WMU's denial
of a religious exemption from vaccine requirement for its st 11(1(1 it athletes violates Plaintiffs'
right to the free exercise of religion.
2. Defendants are enjoined from enfbrcing a COVID-19 vaccine requirement against
Plaintiffs. Defendants may not prevent Plaintiffs from participating in team activities for the
reason that Plaintiffs have not received a COVID-19 vaccine. So long as Plaintiffs have not
received a COVID-19 vaccination, Defendants may require intiffs to submit to COVID-
19 testing weekly or more frequently and may also require Plaintiffs to Wear face coverings
3. Plaintiff's must serve Defendants with a copy of the summons, complaint, both
motions for a temporary restraining order, and this Order. Plaintiffs must serve Defendants
as soon as practicably possible, and no later than Wednesday, September 1, 2021, at 5 p.m.
Plaintiff's must file proof of service.
4. Defendants may file a response to Plaintiffs' motion by Friday, September 3, 2021.

Plaintiffs may file a reply to Defendants' response by 12:00 p.m. (noon) on
Tuesday, September 7, 2021.
6. The Court will hold a hearing concerning a preliminary injunction beginning at
1:30 p.m. on Thursday,September 9, 2021, at 171 Federal lit ilding, 41() W. Michigan Ave.,
Kalamazoo, Michigan.
7. The temporal),restraining order takes effect at 1:30 p.m. on August 31, 2021, and
will expire approximately fourteen (14) days later. The Court may issue an order at or
following the hearing fOr a preliminary injunction either coi i lig the temporary restraining
order to a preliminary injunction or ending the temporary restraining order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 31, 2021 /s/ Paul L. Maloney

Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
ATTACHMENT J


BAILEY KORHORN,and MORGAN
OTTESON,
Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:21-cv-757
v. Hon. Paul L. Maloney

Defendants.
DEFENDANTS'RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
The Court is being asked to convert a TRO that was entered on August 31, 2021(ECF
No. 8), into a preliminary injunction. The August 31, 2021 Order enjoined the Defendants
from enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine requirement against Plaintiffs. The TRO should be
dissolved, and the Court should deny the request for a preliminary injunction because the
Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the necessary standard for the relief sought. Specifically, because the
COVID-19 vaccine policy is a neutral rule of general applicability it is subject to rational basis
review. The Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of such a
challenge.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
There have been approximately over 39 million diagnosed cases of COVID-19 in the
United States to date. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home Over

Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-SJE3 ECF No. 18, PagelD.301 Filed 09/03/21 Page 2 of 26
640,000 people have died from the COVID-19 virus in the United States to date. Id. From
February 2020 until August 30, 2021, Michigan has had over 950,000 confirmed cases of
COVID-19 and an additional 114,000 probable cases.
https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163 98173---,00.html There
have been over 20,000 confirmed deaths from COVID-19 in Michigan in that same period of
time. Id. There have been over 22,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Kalamazoo County
and an additional 3,063 probable cases. Id. There have been 375 confirmed deaths from
COVID-19 in Kalamazoo County and 43 probable deaths, for a total of 418 deaths from
COVID-19 in Kalamazoo County. Id. Since June 2021 the number of new COVID-19 cases in
Michigan has steadily increased. Id. Since June 2021, both cases and hospitalizations due to
COVID-19 have increased in Michigan. Id.
There are currently three vaccines available in the United States: Pfizer-BioNtech,
Moderna and Johnson & Johnson/Janssen.(Exhibit A, Affidavit of Dr. Gayle Ruggiero, ¶ 5).
All three were initially available under Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA")from the Food
and Drug Administration. (Id. ¶ 6). All three vaccines under the EUA went through multi-
phase clinical trials for safety and efficacy. (Id. ¶ 7). The FDA has now approved the Pfizer-
BioNTech vaccine.(Id. ¶ 8). Each vaccine has demonstrated a high level of efficacy, although
less than 100%,both in published clinical trials and data from post-vaccination collecting on
incidence of severe illness, hospitalization, and death.(Id. ¶ 9).
Requiring those participating in intercollegiate athletics to be fully vaccinated in the
most efficacious manner of reducing the risk of transmitting the COVID-19 virus both to
teammates and to opponents. (Id. ¶ 10). Although soccer is typically played in an outdoor
setting, the team frequently practices in an indoor facility and the close contact between
2
players during a game and practice carries a high risk of transmitting the virus. (Id. ¶ 11).
The likelihood of a Covid-19 outbreak in the Athletics program is greatly reduced by having
uniform vaccination among the student athletes.(Id. ¶ 12). Based on transmission levels and
isolation requirements, a Covid-19 outbreak in any given sport could reasonably result in
forfeited games and suspension or cancellation, in whole or in part, of a season.(Id. ¶ 13).
The requirement that student athletes be vaccinated against Covid-19 is the most effective
and reasonable way to guard against a Covid-19 outbreak in any given sport. (Id. ¶ 14).
Allowing students to participate in a masking and testing protocol as an accommodation for
any reason greatly undermines the efficacy and intent of the vaccine requirement and is not
medically reasonable.(Id. ¶ 15).
Relying on the advice of medical experts, WMU's Athletic Director, Kathy Beauregard,
implemented its vaccine requirement to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, the health,
safety, and well-being of student athletes, and that student athletes could complete their
athletic seasons without a Covid-19 outbreak.(Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kathy Beauregard, ¶
9). The policy states: "Thus, to maintain full involvement in the athletic department
community at Western Michigan University, all student-athletes, coaches, and athletic staff
members are directed to provide proof of a minimum of a first COVID-19 vaccine no later
than August 31, 2021." (Id. ¶ 10). Allowing unvaccinated students to participate in
intercollegiate athletic activities undermines the efficacy and intent of the requirement.(Id.
¶ 12). Should a student athlete contract the Covid-19 virus on a team with other
unvaccinated students, the infected student would have to quarantine for 10 days and
contract tracing and testing would be required for the team. Any other team member who
tested positive would also have to quarantine for 10 days. Based on the size of the team and
3
the number of positive cases, all team activity could be halted. Having a large portion of a
team under quarantine would decimate their chances for participation (Id. ¶ 13). The NCAA
requires that any institution unable to field a team in competition -including due to COVID-
19 - will forfeit such competition.(Id. 14). If WMU forfeits competitions, it will be hurt both
reputationally and financially. WMU is a party to legally signed contracts committing it to
participate in intercollegiate competitions. Each of those contracts carry with it legal and
financial responsibilities. (Id. ¶ 19). For example, if the football team were to forfeit its
September 18, 2021, game against the University of Pittsburgh, WMU could have to pay $1
million to the University of Pittsburgh. (Id. ¶ 20). Additionally, without the $1.4 million
financial guarantee from the University of Michigan for participating in the September 4,
2021 football game, WMU would not be able to balance its athletic budget.(Id.)
In addition to any fees the university receives in exchange for playing certain
competitions, the university has already signed contracts for travel, hotels, some food, and
other costs. It would forfeit all of those funds if it were forced to cancel a competition at the
last minute due to a COVID outbreak. (Id. ¶ 21). In addition to direct financial losses from
cancelling contracts, the WMU could be subject to legal liability for breach of contract. Such
liability will also likely lead to difficulty in scheduling future competitions, thus reducing
WMU's reputation as an athletic program. (Id. ¶ 22). Moreover, other schools would know
that WMU could forfeit a game at any time and would be less likely to agree to enter into
competition with the university. Therefore,students who now fail to get vaccinated will limit
athletic opportunities for other current and future student athletes. (Id. ¶ 23).
WMU's vaccination requirement was implemented without regard to protected class
status, including religion. (Id. ¶ 15). The policy does include a medical and religious
4
exemption."Medical or religious exemptions and accommodations will be considered on an
individual basis." (Id. ¶ 11). Any athlete who has been granted a religious exemption, for
which the only reasonable accommodation is to no longer participate as a student-athlete,
will maintain any athletic scholarship they have and will continue to be listed as a player on
the team website.(Id. ¶ 24).
Currently, the best practice for accepted health standards is to be vaccinated against
COVID-19. In the event a student-athlete violates the vaccination policy and has not
requested a medical or religious exemption,that athlete will be deemed to be in violation of
the Code of Conduct and will be subject to discipline up to and including dismissal from the
team, loss of scholarship, and termination of eligibility to participate in intercollegiate
athletics at Western Michigan University. Conversely, student-athletes who have obtained a
medical or religious exemption continue as members of their team, retain their scholarship,
and remain eligible to participate in intercollegiate athletics at Western Michigan University.
(Id. ¶ 18). All students athletes execute a document that provides:
Western Michigan University and its Division of Intercollegiate Athletics

expressly reserve the exclusive right to establish and determine the standards
of conduct, behavior, and performance ofstudent-athletes participating in the
intercollegiate athletic program ("Program") and to require compliance with
such standards as a condition of continued participation in the Program. The
undersigned expressly acknowledges these rights and agrees that failure to
comply with such standards may result in the student-athlete being prohibited
from participating in the Program, as well as possible forfeiture of any
scholarships or funding related to his/her participation in the Program.
(Id. 725).
As quoted above, the policy applies to all students participating in intercollegiate
athletics at WMU. There are only two exemptions: one for medical reasons and one for
religious reasons. Each of the Plaintiffs sought a religious exemption from the vaccination
5
policy. The specific accommodation requested by each Plaintiff was an exemption from the
vaccination policy while continuing to participate in intercollegiate sports. Tammy Miller,
the Associate Director and ADA Coordinator in the Office of Institutional Equity at WMU
reviewed the Plaintiffs' requests for a religious exemption.(Exhibit C, Affidavit of Tammy
Miller, In 1, 3). Ms. Miller did not and does not question the sincerity of any student's
religious beliefs and does not question the sincerity of the Plaintiffs' religious beliefs. (Id. ¶
4). Although the formal response on the form from WMU states the requested exemption
was denied (ECF No. 1-7, PagelD 42; ECF No. 1-8, PagelD 45; ECF No. 1-9, PagelD 48; ECF No.
1-10, PagelD 51), each is more accurately described as granting the exemption but denying
the specific accommodation that the Plaintiffs requested: participating unvaccinated in
intercollegiate athletics while the policy is in place and they are unable to comply.(Exhibit
C, ¶ 6). Requests for a medical exemption are handled through the Disability Services for
Students offices. The medical accommodations available for student athlete are the same as
for religious accommodations: the students maintain their scholarship if they are receiving
one, remain a student in good standing, are not required to take the vaccine, and are not
permitted to participate in any team activities.(Id. ¶ 7).
Each Plaintiff remains a member of their team, retains their scholarship if they have
one, remains a student in good standing, and retains eligibility to participate in
intercollegiate athletics at WMU. (Exhibit B, ¶ 24). No Plaintiff is being forced to be
vaccinated over her religious objections.(Exhibit B, Exhibit C). Conversely,any unvaccinated
student-athlete who has not obtained a religious or medical exemption is subject to
disciplinary action for failure to comply with an Athletics Department Policy up to and
including dismissal from the team,loss ofscholarship, and loss of eligibility.(Exhibit B,¶ 18).
6
Moreover, every student-athlete who has requested a religious exemption has been treated
in exactly the same way.(Exhibit C, ¶ 5). WMU has not acted differently based on the nature
or type of religious belief asserted. Prior to the Court's issuance of the TRO no student-athlete
was permitted to participate in practices or games unless and until that individual had been
vaccinated.(Exhibit B,¶ 24).
STANDARD
This Court described the standard for deciding a motion for preliminary injunction
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 in Libertas Classical Ass'n v. Whitmer, 498 F. Supp. 3d 961,969-970
(W.D. Mich. 2020):
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs requests for

preliminary injunctions. District courts exercise their discretion when
granting or denying preliminary injunctions. Planet Aid v. City of St. Johns,
Michigan, 782 F.3d 318, 323 (6th Cir. 2015). When deciding a motion for a
preliminary injunction, a court should consider and balance four factors:(1)
whether the plaintiff has established a substantial likelihood or probability of
success on the merits;(2) whether there is a threat of irreparable harm to the
plaintiff;(3)the balance of equities; and (4) whether granting injunctive relief
services the public's interest.
(citing Daunt v. Benson, 956 F.3d 396, 406 (6th Cir. 2020)). When a court considers
the four factors as part of a constitutional challenge,"'the likelihood ofsuccess on the
merits often will be the determinative factor.'" Thompson v. DeWine, 976 F.3d 610,
615(6th Cir. 2020)(quoting Obamafor America v. Husted,697 F.3d 423,436(6th Cir.
2012)). The United States Supreme Court has stated that a preliminary injunction is
an "extraordinary and drastic remedy," that should "only be awarded upon a clear
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief," Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
7
Case 1:21-ov-00757-PAM-SJB ECF No. 18, PagelD.307 Filed 09/03/21 Page 8 of 26
555 U.S. 7, 22,129 S.Ct. 365(2008)(citing Munafv. Geren,553 U.S. 674,690, 128 S.Ct.
2207(2008)).
In this case, Plaintiffs do not have a likelihood of success on the merits. Therefore, the
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction should be denied.
ARGUMENT
I Western Michigan University's COVID-19 vaccination policy does not violate the
Free Exercise Clause.
A. WMU's policy is a neutral rule of general applicability that survives
rational basis review and the Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they are likely to succeed
on the merits of their claims.
Religious freedom is unquestionably a value ofthe highest order in our constitutional
system. However,the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion "does not mean
that religious institutions enjoy a general immunity from secular laws." Our Lady of
Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. 2049, 2060 (2020). The same is true of
individuals and their free exercise rights. "[T]he very concept of ordered liberty precludes
allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as
a whole has important interests." Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-216 (1972). "The
Free Exercise Clause simply cannot be understood to require the Government to conduct its
own internal affairs in ways that comport with the religious beliefs of particular citizens."
Bowen v. Roy,476 U.S. 693,699 (1986). And, as Justice Scalia wrote:
We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from
compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is
free to regulate. On the contrary,the record of more than a century of our free
exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. ... Can a man excuse his
practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would
8
be to make the professed doctrines of religious beliefsuperior to the law ofthe

land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Emp. Div., Dep't ofHum. Res. ofOregon v. Smith,494 U.S. 872,878-879(1990). As a result, the
federal courts have uniformly held that laws that have an incidental burden on religious
conduct but that are neutral toward religion and apply generally are not constitutionally
infirm. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531 (1993);
Resurrection School v. Hertel, F. 4th (No. 20-2256, 2021 WL 3721475, at *11 (6th Cir.
2021)("Where a challenged law is neutral and of general applicability and has merely an
'incidental effect' on Plaintiffs' religious beliefs, Defendants need not show a compelling
governmental interest.")); Resurrection School v. Gordon, 507 F. Supp. 3d 897, 901 (W.D.
Mich. 2020)("On one side of the line, a generally applicable law that incidentally burdens
religious practices usually will be upheld.")(citing Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409, 413 (6th
Cir. 2020)."
The neutrality requirement means that a rule must not "infringe upon or restrict
practices because of their religious motivation." Lukumi, supra, 508 S. Ct. at 533.
(Emphasis added). The Free Exercise Clause therefore bars the government from
discriminating against religion either facially or through "religious gerrymanders" that
target specific religious conduct. Id. at 534. General applicability is a related concept. It
proscribes governmental rules that selectively "impose burdens only on conduct motivated
by religious belief." Id. at 531, 543.(Emphasis added).
WMU's vaccination policy does not discriminate against religion. It applies equally to
all student-athletes regardless of their religious beliefs and regardless of whether they have
religious beliefs. While the Plaintiffs make conclusory assertions that the WMU policy is
neither neutral nor generally applicable, there is not a single fact pled in the Complaint to
9
support those conclusions. Rather, paragraphs 50 and 51 of the Complaint contain the
following unsupported contentions:
50. Defendants' policies and practices are not general laws as they specifically target
Christians who share Plaintiffs' sincerely held religious views but leave untouched students
who ascribe to other or no faith traditions.
51. By design, Defendants' exemption denials, policies and practices are imposed on
some religious students, but not on others, resulting in unjust discrimination amongst
religious beliefs.
Neither of these paragraphs contain factual allegations the Court must (or should)
accept as true but rather contain conclusory assertions that are not entitled to such
acceptance. Clark v. Stone,998 F.3d 287, 298(6th Cir. 2021)("We need not, however, accept
as true the 'plaintiff's legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences."). Paragraph 50
does not identify who the students are that are supposedly "untouched" by the rule and who
ascribe to "other or no faith traditions." That is insufficient to be considered a factual
allegation as opposed to a conclusion. To the extent paragraph 50 is alleging that
unvaccinated players who are atheists or practice religions other than Christianity are being
permitted to participate in intercollegiate athletics, that allegation is false. The Affidavits
submitted by WMU officials completely destroy any such assertion. And again,the Complaint
does not identify any actual facts, but only a conclusory assertion.
Paragraph 51 fares no better. It asserts that WMU's policy is "imposed on some
religious students, but not on others, resulting in unjust discrimination amongst religious
beliefs." There are no facts alleged to support this contention and the court should not accept
it as true. It is not even clear what is being alleged. Are the Plaintiffs alleging that WMU is
10
allowing (for example)some Catholics to participate who are not vaccinated, but not others
(such as Emily Dahl)? If so,that assertion is completely refuted by the Affidavits ofthe WMU
officials. Or is the Complaint alleging that some Catholics(for example) have been vaccinated
and are being allowed to participate? If this is the assertion (which would be consistent with
the letter from Father Hawk, ECF No. 1-4, PagelD 29), how does that reflect in any way on
WMU? If one Catholic has a religious objection to being vaccinated but another does not(and,
therefore, is vaccinated), is WMU supposed to treat the unvaccinated person the same as the
vaccinated person simply because they practice the same religion? Plaintiffs have identified
no evidence demonstrating that WMU's"design" in instituting this policy was anything other
than the health, safety, and welfare of the student athletes and the viability and reputation
of WMU's athletic programs. Indeed, what benefit could WMU possibly receive by designing
a policy to eliminate some of its best athletes from competition? Apart from paragraphs 50
and 51, there are no allegations in the Complaint that WMU's policy is neither neutral nor
generally applicable.
In granting the Plaintiffs' Ex-Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,the Court
stated: "Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits of the Free Exercise
Claim. Plaintiffs have established that WMU's vaccination requirement is subject to strict
scrutiny."(ECF No.8,PageID 129). The Defendants submit there is no basis for applying strict
scrutiny to the WMU vaccination policy.
It appears the Court focused on two points in ruling that strict scrutiny should apply.
First, the Court stated that "[w]hen a law forces an individual to choose between following
her religious beliefs or forfeiting benefits, the law places a substantial burden on the
individual's free exercise of religion."(ECF No. 8, PageID 129)(citing Living Water Church of
11
God v. Charter Twp. OfMeridian, 258 F. App'x 729, 734 (6th Cir. 2007). The Court then stated
that "a law is not generally applicable if it 'invite[s]' the government to consider the
particular reasons for a person's conduct by providing a 'mechanism for individualized
exemptions.'"(ECF No. 8, PagelD 129)(citing Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868,
1877 (2021). The Court then continued, "Courts review denials of individualized requests
for a religious exemption to determine if the government entity had a compelling reason."
(ECF No. 8, PagelD 130)(citing Meriweather v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 514 - 515 (6th Cir.
2021)). Respectfully, there is no basis to apply strict scrutiny on either basis.
1. Plaintiffs do not have a constitutionally protected interest in
participating in intercollegiate athletics.
The Defendants first point out that Living Water, supra, was decided under the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which mandates strict
scrutiny review. In pertinent part, RLUIPA provides that:
[n]o government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner

that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person,
including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government
demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or
institution—
(A)is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B)is the least restrictive means offurthering that compelling governmental
interest.
42 U.S.C.§ 2000cc(a)(1)(emphasis added). In addressing this issue,the Sixth Circuit in Living
Water in turn cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sherbert v. Verner, another case decided
under strict scrutiny review. The Living Water opinion states: "[The Supreme Court] has
found no substantial burden when, although the action encumbered the practice of religion,
it did not pressure the individual to violate his or her religious beliefs." Living Water Church
12
of God, supra, 258 F. App'x at 734 (citing Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 404 (1963)). In
making its decision,the court focused primarily on the "pressure" or the nature ofthe alleged
coercion.
In Sherbert, where the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny, the plaintiff was given
the choice of violating her religious beliefs by working on her faith's Sabbath (Saturday) or
forfeiting eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits. 374 U.S. at 399. The Supreme
Court found that choice to be no different than imposing a fine on the Plaintiff for Saturday
worship. 374 U.S. at 404. Similarly, in Everson v. Board ofEducation, the Supreme Court held
that the government may not exclude the members of any faith, because of their faith, or lack
of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation. 330 U.S. 1, 16(1947).
In Thomas v. Rev. Bd. ofIndiana Emp. Sec. Div., the Supreme Court held that denial of
unemployment compensation benefits to the plaintiff, who terminated his job because of his
religious beliefs, constituted a violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of
religion — again employing strict scrutiny. 450 U.S. 707(1981). However, while courts have
employed strict scrutiny when evaluating whether individuals forfeited employment rights
based on their religion previously, that is not the correct standard of review in this case.
Here, the strict scrutiny analysis is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in
Employment Division v. Smith, supra. In this case, the Plaintiffs were not put to the choice of
following their religious beliefs or "forfeiting benefits," because there is neither a liberty
interest nor a property interest in participating in intercollegiate athletics. Plaintiffs
continue to receive their scholarships and remain as students in good standing at WMU.The
only limitation is that they cannot participate in intercollegiate athletics. That is not sufficient
to constitute the sort of choice the Constitution forbids.
13
The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly and uniformly held that participation in athletic
programs - either at the collegiate level or the high school level - is not an interest protected
by the Constitution. "On appeal, plaintiffs acknowledged that Karmanos III did not have a
constitutionally protected right to participate in intercollegiate athletics." Karmanos v. Baker,
816 F.2d 258, 260 (6th Cir. 1987)(citing Graham v. NCAA, 804 F.2d 953, 959 n. 2 (6th Cir.
1986)); Hamilton v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 552 F.2d 681,682 (6th
Cir. 1976);Jones v. Wichita State University, 698 F.2d 1082, 1086 (10th Cir. 1983); Parish v.
NCAA,506 F.2d 1028, 1034(5th Cir. 1975). In a similar case, the Sixth Circuit stated:
Graham has wisely abandoned on appeal the theory that the defendants
deprived him of a fundamental right by preventing him from playing
intercollegiate football. The courts have consistently held that participation in
interscholastic athletics is not a constitutionally protected fundamental right.
Graham v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 804 F.2d 953, 959 (6th Cir. 1986)(citing Hamilton
v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n, 552 F.2d 681, 682 (6th Cir. 1976)); Jones v.
Wichita State University, 698 F.2d 1082, 1086 (10th Cir. 1983); Colorado Seminary v. NCAA,
570 F.2d 320, 321-22(10th Cir. 1978); Parish v. NCAA,506 F.2d 1028, 1034(5th Cir. 1975).
The "privilege of participating in interscholastic athletics must be deemed to fall ...
outside the protection of due process." Hamilton v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n,
552 F.2d 681,682(6th Cir. 1976). Similarly, in Awrey v. Gilbertson,833 F. Supp.2d 738, 741-
742 (E.D. Mich. 2011), Judge Ludington ruled:
Although it is possible that Plaintiff had a property interest in his continued

relationship with the University, particularly in light of the letter of intent and
scholarship agreement, his property interest claim will be dismissed because
he has not demonstrated that the Constitution protects his interest in playing
college football, standing alone. First, the University's decision deprived him
of only a partial season of eligibility. His eligibility was restored in 2008 before
the start ofthe next season.Second,while the letter ofintent may furnish some
14
suggestion of an implied contract, the University promised Plaintiff a

scholarship and an education in exchange for his participation in the football
program. The University did not promise that he would be permitted to play
football, practice with the team,or play in the games.
Notably, Plaintiff does not allege that his scholarship was revoked, or that the
University interfered with his efforts to attain an education. The interest
Plaintiff had in playing football at SVSU for the final month ofthe 2007 season,
while undoubtedly important to him, is simply not the type of property
interest the Due Process Clause was intended to protect. Plaintiff did not have
a 'legitimate claim of entitlement' to playing football at SVSU.
(internal citations omitted); see also, Colorado Seminary (Univ. ofDenver) v. Nat'l Collegiate
Athletic Ass'n, 570 F.2d 320,321 (10th Cir. 1978);Spath v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 728
F.2d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 1984) (a college athlete has only a non-protectable expectancy for
renewal of a scholarship); Austin v. Univ. of Oregon, 205 F. Supp. 3d 1214, 1221-22 (D. Or.
2016)(college student-athletes had no clearly established right in the economic benefit of
their athletic scholarship); Marcantonio v. Dudzinski, 155 F. Supp. 3d 619, 635 (W.D. Va.
2015)("Cases widely hold that college athletic scholarships and participation in collegiate
athletics are not cognizable property interests."); Fluitt v. Univ. of Neb., 489 F. Supp. 1194,
1203(D. Neb. 1980)(a scholarship "would not seem to be the type of property interest that
could be relied upon" except for a one-year scholarship that already has been offered).
Moreover, Plaintiffs have at least one other option. They are free to transfer to a
school with a different vaccination policy. Since the Plaintiffs are not being put to a "choice"
of constitutional significance, there is no basis to apply strict scrutiny to their claim.
2. WMU's decision to allow a religious exemption does not create a system
of individualized exemptions subjecting the policy to strict scrutiny.
15
Based on Plaintiffs' allegations and arguments WMU would have been better off if it
had made no allowances for a religious exemption - which it was constitutionally permitted
to do. As far back as 1905, the Supreme Court has found that there is no right to a religious
exemption for compulsory vaccination laws. See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 38,
25 S.Ct. 358(1905)(holding that compulsory vaccination laws with only medical exemptions
do not violate any federal constitutional right). Nikolao v. Lyon, 875 F.3d 310, 316 (6th Cir.
2017). This Court recently identified the Klaasen v. Trustees ofIndiana University case from
the Northern District of Indiana as "persuasive." Norris v. Stanley, No. 1:21-CV-756, 2021 WL
3891615, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 31, 2021)(citing Klaassen v. Trustees ofIndiana Univ., No.
1:21-CV-238 DRL, 2021 WL 3073926, at *25 (N.D. Ind. July 18, 2021)). In Klaassen, Judge
Leichty rejected a similar Free Exercise challenge:
The vaccine mandate is a neutral rule of general applicability. It applies to all

students, whether religious or not. It doesn't discriminate among religions.
Indeed, the university has chosen to enable the practice of religion by
providing a religious exemption to this vaccination requirement—one that the
university, on this record, has freely granted to students if they request it, no
questions asked.This is consistent with the Constitution.... Indiana University
adopted a religious exemption, despite a religious-neutral vaccine mandate,
which the law views as a matter of grace. Indeed,six ofthe eight students here
applied for just such a religious exemption and obtained one.
Klaassen,2021 WL 3073926 at *25-27 (citing Nikolao,875 F.3d at 316(religious plaintiff had
no constitutional right to an exemption from mandatory vaccination law for public school
students, though state provided one)); Phillips v. City ofNew York, 775 F.3d 538, 542-43(2d
Cir. 2015)(state "could constitutionally require that all children be vaccinated in order to
attend public school.... [but the State went] beyond what the Constitution requires by
allowing an exemption for parents with genuine and sincere religious beliefs"); Workman v.
16
Mingo Count. Bd. ofEduc.,419 F. Appx. 348,355-56(4th Cir. 2011); Whitlow v. California, 203
F. Supp.3d 1079,1084(S.D. Cal. 2016); Boone v. Boozman,217 F. Supp.2d 938,954(E.D. Ark.
2002). In this case the record establishes that every request for a religious exemption has
been individually considered, each has been granted to the extent that no student is being
compelled to receive a vaccination, no student is having their scholarship revoked, and no
student is being "kicked off" their team.
Turning to the "individualized exemption" issue, the Defendants submit there is no
system of exemptions in place that calls for the application ofstrict scrutiny. This Court cited
Meriweather v. Hartop, supra, for the proposition that "Courts review denials of
individualized requests for a religious exemption to determine if the government entity has
a compelling reason." (ECF No. 8, PagelD 130). But read in context, Meriweather does not
support strict scrutiny review in this case. To begin, Meriweather cited Lukumi's discussion
about "religious gerrymanders." "A pattern of exemptions parallels the pattern of narrow
prohibitions. Each contributes to the gerrymander." 992 F.3d at 515 (citing Lukumi,508 U.S.
at 537). The Lukumi court in turn relied on Employment Division v. Smith,supra, which found
that their decisions "in the unemployment cases stand for the proposition that where the
State has in place a system of individual exemptions,it may not refuse to extend that system
to cases of 'religious hardship' without compelling reason." 494 U.S. at 884. And the
Meriweather court in applying the rule explained:
Second, the university's policy on accommodations was a moving target. Why

does this matter? Because when "individualized exemptions from a general
requirement are available, the government 'may not refuse to extend that
system to cases of "religious hardship" without compelling reason." Lukumi,
508 U.S. at 537 (quoting Smith,494 U.S. at 884).
17
When Dean Milliken told Meriwether that he was violating the university's
gender-identity policy, Meriwether proposed a compromise: He would
address Doe using Doe's last name and refrain from using pronouns to address
Doe. Dean Milliken accepted this accommodation. But several weeks later, she
retracted the agreed-upon accommodation and demanded that Meriwether
use Doe's preferred pronouns if he intended to use pronouns to refer to other
students. Now the university claims that its policy does not permit any
religious accommodations.
This about-face permits a plausible inference that the policy allows

accommodations, but the university won't provide one here.
Meriwether, 992 F.3d at 515.
These cases, read together,stand for the proposition that if a system ofindividualized
exemptions for secular reasons is put in place, but not for religious reasons, the government
must justify the disparity. Here, the WMU policy included only two exemptions - one for
medical reasons and one for religious reasons. There is no "system of individualized
exemptions." There are only two exemptions, and both are categorical, not individual: one
for religious exemptions and one for medical exemptions. The system of exemptions in
Meriweather,Lukumi,and Employment Division v. Smith are the polar opposite of WMU's two
exemptions. Strict scrutiny should not apply to WMU's policy.
Moreover, Meriweather does not stand for the proposition that if each request for a
religious exemption is reviewed individually, strict scrutiny applies. In fact, the law is
directly to the contrary: "The [Free Exercise] inquiry should have been as follows. First, a
determination must be made:(1) whether the belief or practice asserted is religious in the
person's own scheme of things, and (2) whether it is sincerely held." Kent v. Johnson, 821
F.2d 1220, 1224 (6th Cir. 1987); Maye v. Klee, 915 F.3d 1076, 1083 (6th Cir. 2019)("In any
free exercise claim,the first question is whether 'the belief or practice asserted is religious
18
in the [plaintiff's] own scheme of things' and is 'sincerely held.'"(Emphasis added).) Those
inquiries cannot be made without assessing each request individually. The record here
establishes that Ms. Miller reviews each request for a religious exemption individually (as
she is required to do) and has accepted each individual's statement of their religious beliefs
and that those beliefs are sincerely held. Nothing about the WMU policy or its application
calls for strict scrutiny review.
Finally, WMU's policy does not suffer from the same flaws that caused the Supreme
Court to employ strict scrutiny in Fulton v. City ofPhiladelphia,supra. In that case, the City of
Philadelphia refused to consider a religious exemption at all, but gave the Commissioner
unfettered discretion to grant other exemptions:
Like the good cause provision in Sherbert, section 3.21 incorporates a system
of individual exemptions, made available in this case at the 'sole discretion' of
the Commissioner. The City has made clear that the Commissioner 'has no
intention of granting an exception' to CSS. App. to Pet. for Cert. 168a. But the
City 'may not refuse to extend that [exemption] system to cases of 'religious
hardship' without compelling reason.'
Fulton, 141 S. Ct. at 1878 (quoting Smith, 494 U.S. at 884). At the risk of being repetitive,
WMU's policy has only two categories of exemptions - a medical exemption and a religious
exemption. The policy does not allow "a system of individualized exemptions" on the one
hand but refuse to consider a religious exemption on the other hand.To the contrary, WMU's
policy does not include "individualized exemptions" that can be granted at the discretion of
an administrator, and it explicitly allows religious exemptions. There is no basis to subject
WMU's policy to strict scrutiny.
WMU's policy is neutral toward religion and generally applicable. Rational basis
review should apply. The WMU policy is rationally related to a legitimate government
interest, so it easily satisfies rational basis review. "To satisfy rational-basis review,
19
Defendants mustshow 'only that the regulation bear[s]some rational relation to a legitimate
state interest.' Here, Defendants had a legitimate state interest in controlling the spread of
COVID-19 in Michigan." Resurrection Sch. v. Hertel, supra, at *15 (quoting Craigmiles v. Giles,
312 F.3d 220, 223(6th Cir. 2002)). So, too, WMU has a legitimate interest in preventing the
spread of COVID-19 among both its student athletes and those of the other schools they play
around the country, and the vaccination policy bears some rational relation to that interest.
The Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim.
H. The Plaintiffs do not have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on the merits
of their substantive due process claim.
Count II of the Complaint asserts a substantive due process claim for an alleged
violation of the right to privacy, personal autonomy, and personal identity. The Plaintiffs
allege the Defendants "force medical treatment" over Plaintiffs' objections. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 60,
PagelD 10). In their Brief, Plaintiffs argue they have a right to refuse medical treatment and
Defendants are attempting to compel them to submit to medical treatment(the vaccine).
The Sixth Circuit has held that in order to state a viable claim of this type a plaintiff
must first prove the deprivation of a protected liberty interest, and then meet the
constitutional standard:
Upon a showing of a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty

interest, a plaintiff must show how the government's discretionary conduct
that deprived that interest was constitutionally repugnant. ... We use the
"shocks the conscience" rubric to evaluate intrusions into a person's right to
bodily integrity.
Guertin v. State, 912 F.3d 907, 922 (6th Cir. 2019)(citing Am. Express Travel Related Servs.
Co. v. Kentucky, 641 F.3d 685, 688 (6th Cir. 2011) (IA] plaintiff must demonstrate a
deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in order to establish
20
a due process violation based on discretionary conduct of government officials[.]"). It is
factually untrue that the Plaintiffs have been compelled to submit to a medical treatment.
The policy does not require the Plaintiffs to receive any medical treatment at all. It merely
imposes a consequence for athletes who are not vaccinated. As discussed above, there is no
right to participate in athletics,so the consequence is not the deprivation of a constitutionally
protected liberty interest - there is no constitutional right to participate in intercollegiate
athletics.
Even assuming a protected liberty interest had been implicated, the standard is not
strict scrutiny review, as Plaintiffs contend, but is the "shocks the conscience" standard. The
Plaintiffs cannot establish that the WMU policy - which seeks to protect against the spread
of COVID-19 and preserve the ability of the athletic program to function - shocks the
conscience. "Due-process-violative conduct (there, forced stomach pumping to obtain
evidence)'shocks the conscience,' infringes upon the 'decencies of civilized conduct,' is 'so
brutal and so offensive to human dignity,' and interferes with rights 'implicit in the concept
of ordered liberty.'" Guertin, 912 F.3d at 923 (citing Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 166,
72 S. Ct. 205, 206(1952). The record does not support such a finding in this case.
III. The Plaintiffs do not have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on the merits
of their public accommodation claim.
Count III of the Complaint alleges a violation of42 U.S.C.§ 2000a. The Plaintiffs allege
they have been denied the public accommodation of the WMU sports arenas, stadium, or
place of exhibition or entertainment. The Plaintiffs do not have a reasonable likelihood of
succeeding on the merits of this claim.
21
First, it is doubtful WMU is subject to 42 U.S.C. § 2000a under the circumstances
presented. Unlike the Americans with Disabilities Act which explicitly include colleges and
universities as places of public accommodation (See 42 U.S.C.§ 12181(7)(j)), Title II does not
include educational institutions within the definition of a place of public accommodation.42
U.S.C.§ 2000a(b).
Moreover, Plaintiffs have not satisfied the notice requirement of the Act. 42 U.S.C.
2000a-3(a) allows a civil action "for preventive relief." But before such an action is brought
the requirements of42 U.S.C.§ 2000a-3(c) must be satisfied. That section of the Act states:
In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this subchapter which

occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local
law prohibiting such act or practice and establishing or authorizing a
State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to
institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice
thereof, no civil action may be brought under subsection (a) before the
expiration of thirty days after written notice of such alleged act or
practice has been given to the appropriate State or local authority by
registered mail or in person, provided that the court may stay proceedings in
such civil action pending the termination of State or local enforcement
proceedings.
(Emphasis added). The Plaintiffs have included a claim under the Michigan Civil Rights Act
alleging they have been denied access to a place of public accommodation. M.C.L. 37.2101,
et. seq.(ECF No. 1, Count V). There can be no dispute that Michigan has a law prohibiting the
allegedly wrongful practice. Therefore, Plaintiffs were required to satisfy the notice
requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(c) before bringing this claim. The Plaintiffs have not
alleged they have satisfied the notice requirement and there is no evidence in the record they
have done so. They are therefore not likely to prevail on this claim.
22
Beyond that, the Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a prima facie claim under 42 U.S.C. §
2000a. In Christian v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 252 F.3d 862 (6th Cir.2001) the Sixth Circuit
established the requirements to state a prima facie case of discrimination in public
accommodations. The plaintiffs must show that:(1) they belonged to a protected class;(2)
they sought to make a contract for services ordinarily provided by the defendant; and (3)
they were denied the right to enter into a contract for such services while similarly situated
persons outside the protected class were not, or they were treated in such a hostile manner
that a reasonable person would find it objectively discriminatory. Id. at 872. Keck v. Graham
Hotel Sys., Inc., 566 F.3d 634, 639 (6th Cir. 2009), held the same analysis applied to claims
brought under the Michigan Civil Rights Act. Judge Cleland ruled the same prima facie
requirements applied to claims under 42 U.S.C.§ 1981 and 42 U.S.C.§ 2000a. Downing v. J.C.
Penney, Inc., No. 11-15015, 2012 WL 4358628, at *3(E.D. Mich. Sept. 23, 2012).
Here, there are no allegations that Plaintiffs attempted to make a contract for
"services" ordinarily provided by WMU.That is, they have not alleged they were denied the
ability to purchase a ticket to attend an event, they have not alleged they were denied access
to a recreational space open to all other students,and they have not alleged they were denied
access to a classroom or library.
Finally, the Plaintiffs have not been denied access to a place of "public"
accommodation. The policy prohibits them from participating in intercollegiate athletic
activities. That puts the Plaintiffs in the same shoes as every other WMU student. No one has
a right under Title II to demand to accompany a sports team onto the practice field, into a
locker room, sit on the team bench, ride the team bus, attend team meetings, or any other
team activity. Title II simply does not apply to this situation.
23
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-SJB ECF No. 18, PagetD.323 Filed 09/03/21 Page 24 of 26
IV. The Plaintiffs do not have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on the merits
of their state constitutional claim or their Michigan Civil Rights Act claim, and the
Eleventh Amendment would preclude the Court from enjoining WMU for an alleged
violation of state law.
Contrary to Plaintiffs' argument, Michigan law does not support their claims. First,
their Michigan constitutional claims are unlikely to succeed in light of McCready v. Hoffius,
459 Mich. 131, 143, 586 N.W.2d 723, 728 (1998), opinion vacated in part, 459 Mich. 1235,
593 N.W.2d 545 (1999), which adopted Employment Division v. Smith, supra, for analyzing
Free Exercise claims under the Michigan constitution. Additionally, the Michigan Court of
Appeals' holding in Reid v. Kenowa Hills Pub. Schools, 261 Mich. App. 17, 680 N.W.2d 62
(2004), demonstrates the Plaintiffs' claims are unlikely to succeed:
Unlike the parents in Dejonge, who were faced with criminal violations
of state law for exercising the freedom to practice their religious beliefs, the
MHSAA enrollment requirements do not infringe on plaintiffs' right to be
homeschooled. Nor do the enrollment requirements subject the next friends
to criminal prosecution. Rather, by exercising their right to practice their
religion through homeschooling, plaintiffs and the next friends made a choice
between homeschooling and having the children participate in extracurricular
interscholastic athletic competition. Moreover,the next friends' desire to have
their children participate in extracurricular interscholastic athletic activities
runs counter to their stated religious purpose to "ensure that the education
provided to their children integrates their religious beliefs on a curriculum-
wide basis and to minimize the influence of other world-views (e.g. secular
humanism/scientific naturalism) and other persons (e.g. peers and other
authority figures) which threaten to undermine those sincerely held religious
beliefs."
In [Cardinal Mooney High School v. MHSAA, 437 Mich. 75, 81; 467
N.W.2d 21 (1991)] our Supreme Court stated that "compliance with MHSAA
rules on the part ofstudent athletes is an appropriate and justifiable condition
of the privilege of participating in interscholastic athletics under the auspices
of the MHSAA."
24
Id. at 28,680 N.W.2d at 69 -70. The Plaintiffs' Civil Rights Act Claim fails for the same reason
their Title II claim fails. The Plaintiffs are not being deprived of the full benefit of WMU's
public accommodations and educational facilities. The Plaintiffs have the same access to, and
benefit of, those accommodations and facilities as every other WMU student.
Finally, even assuming the Court were to find the Plaintiffs have a reasonable
likelihood of success on the merits of their state law claims, the Eleventh Amendment bars
the entry of an injunction on that basis.
The Eleventh Amendment and background principles of sovereignty ordinarily bar
lawsuits against States and state officials. Alden v. Maine,527 U.S. 706, 712-714 (1999). An
exception to this immunity is that private parties may sue state officials to stop ongoing
constitutional violations. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155-156 (1908). See, McNeil v.
Community Probation Services, LLC,945 F.3d 991,994(6th Cir. 2019).
Western Michigan University is a state entity which the state legislature supports
through appropriations. See Mich. Const. art. 8, § 4 ("The legislature shall appropriate
moneys to maintain the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State
University, Eastern Michigan University, Michigan College of Science and Technology,
Central Michigan University, Northern Michigan University, Western Michigan University,
Ferris Institute, Grand Valley State College, by whatever names such institutions may
hereafter be known, and other institutions of higher education established by law")
(emphasis added). Therefore, WMU is an arm of the state entitled to the protections of the
Eleventh Amendment.The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from enjoining the
state or state officials for alleged violations ofstate law.
25
"As the Court wrote in Pennhurst,'it is difficult to think of a greater intrusion on state
sovereignty than when a federal court instructs state officials on how to conform their
conduct to state law.' 465 U.S. at 106." Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner, 543 F.3d 357, 361
(6th Cir. 2008)(citing Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 124-25,
104 S.Ct. 900(1984)).
V. Other Factors.
Since "[p]reliminary injunctions in constitutional cases often turn on likelihood of
success on the merits, usually making it unnecessary to dwell on the remaining three
factors," Roberts v. Neace,958 F.3d 409,416(6th Cir. 2020),the Defendants do not believe it
is necessary to address the other three factors. Rational basis should apply and the Plaintiffs
cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.
RELIEF REQUESTED
The Defendants respectfully request the Court deny the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and issue an order dissolving the Temporary Restraining Order
entered on August 31, 2021.

BUSINESS ADDRESS:
mbogren@plutiketicooney.com
Open.07616.14299.27113312-1
26
EXHIBIT A

EMILY DAHL,HANNAH RED OUTE,

BAILEY KORHORN, and MORGAN
OTTESON,
v. Hon.Paul L. Maloney

Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF DR.GAYLE RUGGIERO
DR.GAYLE RUGGIERO,being first duly sworn deposes and states as follows:
1. I am a licensed physician in the State of Michigan and am currently the Medical
Director of the Sind ecuse Health Center at Western Michigan University.
2. I have been extensively involved in the University's response to the Covid -19
pandemic and am co-chair of the University's Covid -19 Response Coordination Team.
3, I have followed the professional literature on the Covid-19 vaccine development
and deployment and have closely monitored CDC guidance and the FDA approval process.
4. There is overwhelming consensus in the medical community that the Covid -19
vaccines are safe and effective.
5. There are currently three vaccines available in the United States,Pfizer-BioNtech,
Moderna and Johnson & Johnson/Janssen.

6. All three were initially available under Emergency Use Authorization("EUA")
from the Food and Drug Administration.
7. All three vaccines under the EUA went through mufti-phase clinical trials for
safety and efficacy.
8. The FDA has now approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
9. Each vaccine has demonstrated a high level of efficacy, although less than 100%,
both in published clinical trials and data from post-vaccination collecting on incidence of severe
illness, hospitalization and death.
10. Requiring those participating in intercollegiate athletics to be fully vaccinated in
the most efficacious manner ofreducing the risk of transmitting the COVID-19 virus both to
teammates and to opponents.
11. Although soccer is typically played in an outdoor setting, the team frequently
practices in an indoor facility and the close contact between players during a game and practice
carries a high risk of transmitting the virus.
12. The likelihood of a Covid-19 outbreak in the Athletics program is greatly
reduced by having uniform vaccination among the student athletes.
13. Based on transmission levels and isolation requirements, a Covid -19 outbreak in
any given sport could reasonably result in forfeited games and suspension or cancellation, in
whole or in part, of a season.
l4. In my professional medical opinion, the requirement that student athletes be
vaccinated against Covid -19 is the most effective and reasonable way to guard against a Covid-
19 outbreak in any given sport.
2
15. Allowing students to participate in a masking and testing protocol as an
accommodation for any reason greatly undermines the efficacy and intent ofthe vaccine
requirement.
16. Ifcalled I could testify to all of the above.
FURTHER,AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
STATE OF MICHIGAN )
)SS.
COUNTY OF KALAMAZOO
On this day of September,2021,before me,a Notary Public, in and for said

county and state, personally appeared Dr. Gayle Ruggiero, who being duly sworn, deposes
and says that she has read the foregoing Affidavit and knows the contents thereof,and that
the same are true of her knowledge,except as to those matters therein stated to be upon her
inform knowledge and belief and as to those matters she believes them to be true.
Notary Folic, rl county, acj,, 1 t rt ilatoilut7q0

Michigan. My com ssion expires: emit.
Utkeka- aoD-co
1 DEBORAH JEANNE BENJAMIN I

i Notary Public - State of Michigan •
Open.07616.14299.27103153-1 County of Allegan
I My Commission Expires Ain 16, 2024
I Acting In the County of :WAN 424) 1
• 4.1. --,....- ....- -_
3
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PAM-SJB ECF No. 18-1, PagelD.330 Filed 09/03/21 Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT B


OTTESON,

Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT KATHY BEAUREGARD

KATHY BEAUREGARD,being first duly sworn, deposes and states as follows:
1. I am the Director of Intercollegiate Athletics for Western Michigan University,
have been the director since 1997, and have been employed by the University in Intercollegiate
Athletics since 1979.
2. As Athletic Director, I am responsible for the oversight of 16 intercollegiate
athletic sports and an approximate average of 375 student athletes.
3. The health, safety, and well-being of student athletes is of paramount importance
to me, my staff, and the University.
4. The athlete program is an NCAA Division 1 program, a member of the Mid-
American Conference(MAC),and the National Collegiate Hockey Conference (NCHC).
5. Intercollegiate athletics is frequently called the "front porch" of higher education
and is the way many prospective students become familiar with a particular college or university.
WMU athletic teams appear on national television as they compete against teams in the MAC
and nationally against teams in the "Power 5" conferences including the Big 10, the Southeastern
Conference (SEC), Big 12 and the Atlantic Coast Conference(ACC).
6. The athletics program administers over an average of 340 scholarships to student
athletes and distributes more than $ 7 million dollars (average)in student aid annually.
7. The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc on higher education, including
intercollegiate athletics.
8. All WMU intercollegiate athletics sports were impacted by the pandemic. For
example, WMU's football team only played six of 12 scheduled games in the 2020 — 2021
season. Athletic revenues were severely reduced as result.
9. Relying on the advice of medical experts, WMU Intercollegiate Athletics
implemented its vaccine requirement to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, the health, safety,
and well-being of student athletes, and that student athletes could complete their athletic seasons
without a COVID-19 outbreak.
10. The policy states in relevant part:"Thus,to maintain full involvement in the
athletic department community at Western Michigan University, all student-athletes, coaches,
and athletic staff members are directed to provide proof of a minimum of a first COVID-19
vaccine no later than August 31, 2021."
l 1. The policy does include a medical and religious exemption. "Medical or religious
exemptions and accommodations will be considered on an individual basis."
12. Allowing unvaccinated students to participate in intercollegiate athletic activities
undermines the efficacy and intent of the requirement.
2
Case 1:21-cv-00757-PLM-SJB ECF No. 18-2, PageiD.334 Filed 09/03/21 Page 4 of 7
13. Should a student athlete contract the Covid-19 virus on a team with other
unvaccinated students, the infected student and all unvaccinated students would have to
quarantine for 10 days and contract tracing and testing would be required for the entire team.
Any other team member who tested positive would also have to quarantine for 10 days. Based
on the size of the team and the number of positive cases, all team activity could be halted.
Having a large portion ofthe team under quarantine would decimate their chances for
participation.
14. The NCAA and MAC requires that any institution unable to field a team for
competition —including due to COVID-19 — will forfeit such competition.
15. WMU's vaccination requirement was implemented without regard to protected
class status, including religion.
16. Each student athlete signs the Student-Athlete Code of Conduct whereby they
agree that "participation in intercollegiate athletics is a privilege and not right," including playing
time in competition. They further agree that "[fjailure to consent to and/or to comply with the
requirements of this policy and procedures shall result in ineligibility for or suspension from
participation, or termination of eligibility to participate in, intercollegiate athletics at Western
Michigan University."
17. The Student-Athlete Code of Conduct requires athletes to "[a]bide by all team,
WMU Athletic Department, WMU,MAC,NCHC and NCAA rules and Maintain oneself in top
physical condition within accepted health standards."
18. Currently, the best practice for accepted health standards is to be vaccinated
against COVID-19. In the event a student-athlete violates the vaccination policy and has not
requested a medical or religious exemption,that athlete will be deemed to be in violation of the
3
Code of Conduct and will be subject to discipline up to and including dismissal from the team,
loss ofscholarship, and termination of eligibility to participate in intercollegiate athletics at
Western Michigan University.
19. If WMU forfeits competitions, it will be hurt both reputationally and financially.
WMU is a party to legally signed contracts committing it to participate in intercollegiate
competitions. Each of those contracts carry with it legal and financial responsibilities.
20. For example, if the football team were to forfeit its September 18, 2021, game
against the University of Pittsburgh, WMU could have to pay $1 million to the University of
Pittsburgh. Additionally, without the financial guarantee of$1.4 million from the University of
Michigan for the September 4,2021 game, the athletic department would not be able to balance
its budget.
21. In addition to any fees the university receives in exchange for playing certain
competitions, the university has already signed contracts for travel, hotels, some food, and other
costs. It would forfeit all ofthose funds if it were forced to cancel a competition at the last
minute due to a COVID outbreak.
22. In addition to direct financial losses from cancelling contracts, the WMU could be
subject to legal liability for breach of contract. Such liability will also likely lead to difficulty in
scheduling future competitions, thus reducing WMU's reputation as an athletic program.
23. Moreover, other schools would know that WMU could forfeit a game at any time
and would be less likely to agree to enter into competition with the university. Therefore,
students who now fail to get vaccinated will limit athletic opportunities for other current and
future student athletes.
4
24. Any athlete who has been granted a religious exemption, but for which the only
reasonable accommodation is to no longer participate as a student-athlete, will maintain any
athletic scholarship they have and will continue to be listed as a player on the team website.
25. All student athletes execute a document that provides:
Western Michigan IJnivcrsity and its Division of

Intercollegiate Athletics expressly reserve the exclusive right to
establish and determine the standards of conduct, behavior, and
performance of student-athletes participating in the intercollegiate
athletic program ("Program") and to require compliance with such
standards as a condition of continued participation in the Program.
The undersigned expressly acknowledges these rights and agrees
that failure to comply with such standards may result in the student-
athlete being prohibited from participating in the Program, as well
as possible Ibrfeiture of any scholarships or funding related to
his/her participation in the Program.
26. WNW does not exercise the same level of control over its club athletics teams as
it does over its Intercollegiate athletes. These programs are not overseen by the Department of
Intercollegiate Athletics. Unlike intercollegiate athletics, WMU's club sports are Registered
Student Organizations(RSO). RSOs are separate legal entities. They receive limited financial
support from the university. The university is not a party to their competition or travel-related
contracts. does not review or approve such contracts, does not provide insurance for RSOs and
would not suffer financial or institutional harm should one of the intramural sports forfeit a game
or be found in breach of such contract.
27. WMU does not exercise the same level of control over its intramural teams as it
does over its Intercollegiate athletes. WMU's intramural teams participate in short four-to-five-
week seasons and athletes rarely travel outside ofthe university lb!. competition. Their programs
are run entirely through the Student Recreation Center and are separate from the Department of
Intercollegiate Athletics. These sports get limited, if any. publicity outside of the university.
5
Given that there are no outside competitions, the University does not suffer reputational or
financial loss should an intramural competition be shut down due to a COVII)outbreak.
Further Affiant sayeth not.
KA HY BE REGARD
STATE OF MICHIGAN
)SS.
COUNTY OF KALAMAZOO )
On this 2ti day of September, 2021, before me,a Notary Public, in and for said
county and state, personally appeared Kathy Beauregard, who being duly sworn, deposes
and says that she has read the foregoing Affidavit and knows the contents thereof, and that
the same are true of her knowledge,except as to those matters therein stated to be upon her
u‘NrIci&R.%soc-<tte-c
Notary Public, YalsoNzoeCounty,
Michigan. My commission expires:
aoa—i
0pen.07616.14299.27103541-1
Sopek‘s 0(N-, c\t 31lAzA
6
EXHIBIT C


OTTESON,

Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF TAMMY MILLER
TAMMY MILLER, being first duly sworn deposes and states as follows:
1. I am the Associate Director and ADA Coordinator in the Office of Institutional
Equity at Western Michigan University.
2. I have been in the Associate Director position for 6 years and the ADA
Coordinator role for 20 years.
3. Part of my duties include reviewing requests for religious accommodations and I
reviewed the requests of the plaintiffs in this action.
4. I did not and do not question the sincerity any students' religious beliefs and I do
not question the sincerity of the plaintiffs' religious beliefs.
5. I have reviewed and acted upon every request for a religious exemption in exactly
the same way.

6. I did not grant the requested accommodations of the plaintiffs'; however, I did not
deny their requests for a religious accommodation and in fact granted them an exemption from
the vaccine requirement and provided a reasonable accommodation to the student under
applicable law.
7. Request for student medical accommodation to the vaccine requirement are
handled through the Disability Services for Students offices. The medical accommodations
available for student athletes related to the vaccine are the same accommodations as for religion.
Students may maintain their athletic scholarship, if any, remain a student in good standing, not
be required to take the vaccine, and not be permitted to engage in team activities.
Further Affiant sayeth not.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
)SS.
COUNTY OF KALAMAZOO
On this ora day of September, 2021, before me,a Notary Public, in and for said
county and state, personally appeared Tammy Miller who being duly sworn, deposes and
says that she has read the foregoing Affidavit and knows the contents thereof, and that the
same are true of her knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be upon her
Notary Public, Y:a.lea•Na24.-A County,

Michigan. My commission expires:
dal ava---1
k
Open.07616.14299.27102997-1
2
ATTACHMENT K

SOUTHERN DIVISION
EMILY DAHL, et al., REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT

OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
Plaintiffs, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
CERT. OF COMPLIANCE,AND
-vs- CERT. OF SERVICE
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WESTERN CASE NO.:1:21-cv-757

MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY; et al.,
HON.:PAUL L. MALONEY
Defendants.
David A. Kallman (P34200) Michael S. Bogren (P34835)

Stephen P. Kallman (P75622) PLUNKETT COONEY
Erin E. Mersino (P70886) Attorney for Defendants
Jack C. Jordan (P46551) 333 Bridge St. NW,Ste. 530
GREAT LAKES JUSTICE CENTER Bridgewater Place
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Grand Rapids, MI 49504
5600 W. Mount Hope Hwy. (269)901-9040
Lansing, MI 48917
(517)322-3207
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
This Honorable Court issued its Amended Temporary Restraining Order(TRO)on August
31, 2021 (ECF No. 8). The Court issued the TRO based upon Plaintiffs' First Amendment Free
Exercise of Religion claim. Because the Court issued the TRO based upon that claim, Plaintiffs
address the arguments surrounding that claim, and why it justifies converting the TRO into a
Preliminary Injunction.
-1-
ARGUMENT
I DEFENDANTS'LACK OF RESPONSE.
Defendants spend a large portion of their brief arguing points not in dispute and legal
theories that not argued, instead of responding to the actual issues at hand. For example, Plaintiffs
are not arguing that they have a fundamental constitutional right to be a WMU athlete, and
Plaintiffs are not arguing against the existence of COVID-19. Instead, Plaintiffs are arguing that
Defendants violated their Free Exercise of Religion constitutional right, and Defendants failed to
provide any evidence or argument as to why their denial of Plaintiffs' requested religious
accommodations can survive a strict scrutiny analysis.
It is also important to note what Defendants did not dispute in their response. They did not
dispute that they have no vaccination requirement for all students at Western Michigan University
(WMU). Defendants did not dispute that unvaccinated students are participating on campus in
virtually limitless activities that could possibly spread COVID-19(not only to other students and
faculty, but also to the student athletes at issue here), such as living in dorms, eating in cafeterias,
engaging in intramural or other sports activities, or attending large sporting events on campus.
They did not dispute that other colleges in the Midwest provide for religious accommodations to
their student athletes that allow those students to participate in intercollegiate athletics using less
restrictive safe alternatives to mandated vaccination.
Perhaps conceding it cannot do so, Defendants also did not respond to the direction in this
Court's order that"WMU must establish the compelling reason for its actions" and "must explain
why the decision to remove the unvaccinated players from intercollegiate competition is narrowly
tailored"(ECF No. 8, PageID.130). Instead, Defendants contend that this Honorable Court applied
the wrong legal standard when analyzing Plaintiffs' claims. The record shows Defendants justified
2
their substantial interference with Plaintiffs' free exercise of religion by individually denying every
request by Plaintiffs on the grounds that WMU had a compelling interest for doing so, and that
WMU used the least restrictive means to accomplish its compelling interest (See, e.g. Complaint
Exhibit F). Nevertheless, Defendants now argue this standard does not apply,contending they must
only justify their interference of Plaintiffs' religious liberty by satisfying a rational basis test.
Defendants' argument lacks merit.
II. DEFENDANTS' MANDATORY VACCINATION POLICY IS NOT GENERALLY APPLICABLE

AND IS SUBJECT TO STRICT SCRUTINY.
Defendants now argue their policy is neutral and generally applicable, and therefore, that
it is not subject to a strict scrutiny analysis. This argument fails for a number of reasons.
As this Honorable Court already correctly stated, "[a] law is not generally applicable if it
`invite[s]' the government to consider the particular reasons for a person's conduct by providing a
`mechanism for individualized exemptions.'" Fulton v. City ofPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S.
Ct. 1868, 1877(2021)(citation omitted). In Fulton, Supreme Court further held:
The creation of a formal mechanism for granting exceptions renders a policy not
generally applicable, regardless whether any exceptions have been given, because
it "invite[s]" the government to decide which reasons for not complying with the
policy are worthy of solicitude, Smith, 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595—here, at
the Commissioner's "sole discretion."
Id. at 1879.
Despite Defendants' claim that no such mechanism for individualized exemptions exist in
this case, their own policy and affidavits show otherwise. First, Defendants' provide an affidavit
expressly showing that their own policy states:
Medical or religious exemptions and accommodations will be considered on an

individual basis.
(ECF No. 18-2, PageID.333 (emphasis added)). Defendants' policy explicitly provides that the
accommodations in this case will be provided on an "individual" basis. Defendant Tammy Miller
3
thereafter reviewed each request for religious accommodation and did make individual
determinations as to each Plaintiff's request(ECF No. 18-3, PageID.339). Ms. Miller stated that
she did not grant any of the Plaintiffs' requests (ECF No. 18-3, PageID.339). As Fulton clearly
holds, it is the creation of the mechanism for granting individualized exceptions and
accommodations granted at the sole discretion of Defendants that renders a policy to not be
generally applicable,"regardless whether any exceptions have been given[.]" Id. at 1879.
Moreover, Defendants claim in their attached affidavit:
Western Michigan University and its Division ofIntercollegiate Athletics expressly

reserve the exclusive right to establish and determine the standards of conduct,
behavior, and performance of student-athletes participating in the intercollegiate
athletic program ("Program") and to require compliance with such standards as a
condition of continued participation in the Program.
(ECF No. 18-2, PageID.336). This language gives Defendants the sole discretion to not only
establish policies, ad hoc, but to also enforce those policies against student-athletes. This situation
differs from many of the cases regarding a "mechanism for individualized exceptions" because
typically those laws or policies are enacted by a separate legislative branch or city council and then
enforced by the executive branch or city mayor.
However, in this case, Defendants reserved for themselves the exclusive right (or sole
discretion) to not only enact the policies, but also the authority to enforce them. Thus, such
language "invite[s] the government to decide which reasons for not complying with the policy are
worthy ofsolicitude" because Defendants have the authority to decide, at any time, who is affected
by their policy, who has to comply with their policy, who is exempted from their policy, and the
consequences for obtaining an exemption to their policy. Therefore, Defendants' policy combined
with their sole discretion to exempt anyone at any time for any reason clearly indicates that the
rule of general applicability does not apply in this case.
-4
Defendants argue in generalities that COVID-19 is dangerous, and the mere existence of
COVID-19 justifies their policy. For example, Defendants argue that because there have been 375
confirmed deaths and 43 probable deaths in Kalamazoo County, this justifies their denial of
Plaintiffs requested religious accommodations. What Defendants failed to state was that there have
been zero confirmed deaths reported in Kalamazoo County for anyone under age 40.1
Deaths by Age Group

200
100
0
40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+
State of Michigan, Deaths by Demographic Characteristics.

https://www.michigan.govicoronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_98173---,00.html. Data retrieved on
September 7, 2021. The State of Michigan indicates that data is suppressed when the number of
deaths for a demographic category is five or below to protect the confidentiality of individuals.
5
Further, there have been zero probable deaths reported for anyone under age 70.2
Deaths by Age Group
20
0
70-79 80+
Since this case is entirely dealing with intercollegiate student-athletes who are between the
ages of 17 and 23, Defendants' alleged justification is completely insufficient.
Defendants make numerous conclusory statements about how their policy is necessary but
then provide zero medical evidence, studies, or anything else to support their position. Defendants
cite to no evidence or study which indicates that providing religious accommodations, such as
testing, quarantining, or masking (in lieu of mandatory vaccination), undermines their goal to such
a degree as to overcome Plaintiffs' fundamental rights. This would perhaps explain why no other
university has implemented a policy similar to Defendants.
Defendants cite Bowen v. Roy,476 U.S. 693, 699(1986) to support their position without
recognizing that the Supreme Court in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association,
2
State of Michigan, Deaths by Demographic Characteristics.
https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_98173---,00.html. Data retrieved on
September 7, 2021. The State of Michigan indicates that data is suppressed when the number of
deaths for a demographic category is five or below to protect the confidentiality of individuals.
6
485 U.S. 439, 108 S.Ct. 1319(1988)expanded upon Roy. While the Lyng Court ultimately denied
that particular Plaintiff's religious claims in that case, the Court outlined the two questions to
analyze when determining whether a governmental policy violates the First Amendment. The first
was whether "the affected individuals [would] be coerced by the Government's action into
violating their religious beliefs," and whether the "governmental action [would] penalize religious
activity by denying any person an equal share of the rights, benefits, and privileges enjoyed by
other citizens." Id. at 449. The Lyng Court concluded:
It is true that this Court has repeatedly held that indirect coercion or penalties
on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions, are subject to
scrutiny under the First Amendment. Thus, for example, ineligibility for
unemployment benefits, based solely on a refusal to violate the Sabbath, has been
analogized to a fine imposed on Sabbath worship. This does not and cannot imply
that incidental effects of government programs, which may make it more difficult
to practice certain religions but which have no tendency to coerce individuals into
acting contrary to their religious beliefs, require government to bring forward a
compelling justification for its otherwise lawful actions.
Id. at 450-451 (internal citations omitted)(emphasis added).
In this case, Defendants are coercing Plaintiffs "into violating their religious beliefs" and
are penalizing Plaintiffs by denying them their "rights, benefits, and privileges." While Plaintiffs
certainly do not have a fundamental constitutional right to be on an intercollegiate sports team,
they do have the right to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, and they do have
a benefit and privilege of being on WMU's athletic teams. It goes without saying that being on an
intercollegiate athletic team may end up being one of the greatest achievements in a person's life
because of the hard work and dedication it requires to achieve it.
It is extremely coercive for Defendants to threaten everything Plaintiffs have achieved and
threaten to permanently remove them from all participation in WMU athletics unless they violate
their sincerely held religious beliefs and agree to be vaccinated. Lyng clearly indicates that the
government cannot require or coerce a person to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs as a
7
prerequisite for participation in intercollegiate sports. Defendants are penalizing Plaintiffs'
religious beliefs by denying them the benefit and privilege of participating in intercollegiate sports.
Pursuant to Defendants' policy, no person who has a religious objection to vaccines will be
permitted to participate in WMU athletics. Defendants have now completely excluded that entire
class of people based upon their sincerely held religious beliefs. The constitution forbids such
blanket exclusions from participation in government-run programs. This is especially so when
there are less restrictive and more narrowly tailored means available.
In summary, Defendants' policy is not generally applicable, coerces Plaintiffs to violate
their sincerely held religious beliefs, and unlawfully denies them their benefits and privileges as a
result. Therefore, Defendants' policy must survive strict scrutiny. It cannot.
III. DEFENDANTS Do NOT HAVE A COMPELLING INTEREST AND DID NOT UTILIZE
NARROWLY TAILORED MEANS.
The Supreme Court in Fulton held:
Rather than rely on "broadly formulated interests," courts must "scrutinize[] the
asserted harm of granting specific exemptions to particular religious claimants."
O'Centro, 546 U.S. at 431, 126 S.Ct. 1211. The question, then, is not whether the
City has a compelling interest in enforcing its non-discrimination policies
generally, but whether it has such an interest in denying an exception to CSS.
Once properly narrowed, the City's asserted interests are insufficient. Maximizing
the number of foster families and minimizing liability are important goals, but the
City fails to show that granting CSS an exception will put those goals at risk.
Fulton, supra, at 1881-1882(emphasis added).
Thus, in this case, it must be analyzed whether Defendants had a compelling interest in
denying Plaintiffs' requested religious accommodations. Defendants now claim that religious
accommodations were, in fact, granted for Plaintiffs. However, Defendants proposed
"accommodations" are illusory and provide no actual accommodation for Plaintiffs' religious
beliefs. Defendants state that a student who requests a religious accommodation "is to no longer
8
participate as a student-athlete, will maintain any athletic scholarship they have and will continue
to be listed as a player on the team website"(ECF No. 18-2, PagelD.336).
To begin, complete removal from the WMU athletic team is no more an accommodation
than an employer granting a religious accommodation by firing that employee with severance pay.
Defendants' claim they are providing an accommodation to these Plaintiff student-athletes by
telling them that they can no longer "participate as a student athlete." It strains the imagination to
understand how barring a student-athlete from participating as a student-athlete amounts to an
accommodation.
Next, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs can maintain their scholarships. When a person
promises something they are already obligated to do, such a promise is illusory. Here, Defendants
are already obligated and have entered into agreements with many of the Plaintiffs to provide
scholarships. Defendants' promise is essentially that they are agreeing to fulfill what they've
already agreed to do and will not breach their agreement with Plaintiffs. Such an "accommodation"
is illusory.
Finally, Defendants' offer to keep Plaintiffs' names on the team website is no meaningful
accommodation. For example, an accommodation would be completely illusory if a club or
fraternity told one of its members that they were permanently barred from participating in any club
or fraternity activities, yet they would still be listed online as a member of that club or fraternity.
Imagine in Fulton ifthe City ofPhiladelphia told the Plaintiffs in that case that they were providing
an accommodation by prohibiting Plaintiffs from engaging in any foster care activities, but instead
would still be listed on the City's website as an approved foster care agency. Obviously such an
"accommodation" is not any accommodation in any reasonable sense of the word. The bottom line
9-
is that Defendants' proposed "accommodations" do nothing to alleviate or fulfill their duties under
the First Amendment and are illusory at best.
Defendants provided no exception, accommodation,or opportunity for Plaintiffs to comply
with their sincerely held religious beliefs while also remaining on WMU's athletic teams. In the
end, this is all Plaintiffs have requested from Defendants. Plaintiffs simply want to continue their
dream of playing college sports at WMU while also complying with their sincerely held religious
beliefs. Such a requested accommodation is required by the First Amendment and WMU fails
provide any such analysis in their response to the contrary.
Moreover, the Sixth Circuit has held:
Under strict scrutiny review, the government bears the burden of showing that its
regulation is "necessary to serve a compelling state interest" and that it is "narrowly
drawn to achieve that end."
Lac Vieux Desert Band ofLake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd., 172
F.3d 397,409(6th Cir. 1999).
The burden to demonstrate that there is a compelling governmental interest is on
Defendants. Despite having this burden, and the Court in its prior order indicating the same,
Defendants have presented no argument as to why their policy and conduct in this case is supported
by a compelling interest or is narrowly tailored. Instead, Defendants state in conclusory terms that
providing religious accommodations "undermines the efficacy and intent of the requirement"(ECF
No. 18-2, PageID.333). However, Defendants provide no explanation for why this interest is
compelling, narrowly tailored, or rises to the level of overcoming a constitutional right.
Defendants claim that they are implementing this policy because they are worried about
COVID-19 outbreaks and they do not want unvaccinated student-athletes infecting vaccinated
student-athletes. Defendants presented no evidence as to why or how the vaccinated student-
athletes are placed at risk by having unvaccinated student-athletes on the team. Further, Defendants
- 10-
do not deny that there is no mandatory vaccine requirement for all students at WMU. It does not
make any sense for Defendants to be so concerned about vaccinated student-athletes coming into
contact with anyone who is unvaccinated when those same student-athletes will inevitably come
into daily contact with unvaccinated students at class, at dorms, at the cafeteria, at school events,
at restrooms, and at virtually any other place on campus where students have interaction with each
other.
Defendants also do not allege that other colleges and universities are permanently
excluding any student-athlete who is not vaccinated. It is also inevitable that WMU student-
athletes will have contact with other unvaccinated student-athletes when they play other schools
in intercollegiate games. For example, WMU just played the University of Michigan (U of M)on
September 4,2021,in Ann Arbor. WMU's student-athletes undoubtably had innumerable contacts
with unvaccinated U of M student-athletes, staff, employees, and guests. If Defendants' primary
goal and concern was to reduce any possibility of causing a COVID-19 outbreak, their conduct
certainly does not match their rhetoric.
Defendants also provide no explanation for how their policy is narrowly tailored.
Defendants cite to the recent decision in Klaassen v. Trustees ofIndiana Univ., No. 1:21-CV-238
DRL,2021 WL 3073926 (N.D. Ind. July 18, 2021)). Defendants failed to note a very important
distinction in that case because the Court outlined Indiana's religious accommodation policy:
For those who receive exemption from vaccination, the policy imposes additional
safety requirements. These requirements apply to six of the eight students here who
have received exemptions and potentially a seventh who qualifies for an exemption.
Such students must participate in more frequent mitigation testing, quarantine if
exposed to someone who has tested positive for COVID-19, wear a mask in public
spaces, and return to their permanent address or quarantine if there is a serious
outbreak of COVID-19
Id. at 13. Thus, Indiana's policy provided a religious exemption which permitted students to still
participate in all school activities but had to comply with additional safety requirements. WMU
-11-
does not. This is all Plaintiffs are requesting in this case, a proper religious accommodation.
Plaintiffs are willing to comply with additional safety requirements in order to continue to
participate in WMU activities. Defendants have failed to provide any explanation for why such a
less restrictive and narrowly tailored policy, as used by many other surrounding colleges and
universities, could not also achieve their goal of reducing the spread of COVID-19.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiffs'
request to convert the currently issued TRO into a Preliminary Injunction.
1st David A. Kallman

David A. Kallman
Stephen P. Kallman
Erin E. Mersino
Jack C. Jordan
Counselfor Plaintiffs
-12-
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULES
I hereby certify that this brief contains 3,221 words, exclusive of the case caption, cover
sheets, any table of contents, any table of authorities, the signature block, attachments, exhibits,
and affidavits, and is thus within the word limit allowed under Local Civil Rule 7.2(b)(i). The
word count was generated by the word processing software used to create this brief: Word for
Microsoft Office 365.
Is! David A. Kallman

David A. Kallman
I hereby certify that on September 7, 2021, a copy of the foregoing Reply Brief in Support
of Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunctive Relief, was filed electronically with the Court. Notice of this
filing will be sent to all parties for whom counsel has entered an appearance by operation of the
court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the court's system.

David A. Kallman
-13-

297-Page Decision in W. MI U. Vaccine Mandate Case Dated Oct. 7th, 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

297-Page Decision in W. MI U. Vaccine Mandate Case Dated Oct. 7th, 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 21-2945 Document: 10-1 Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 1 (1 of 297)

IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT

EMILY DAHL, HANNAH REDOUTE,

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF

APPELLANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY INJUNCTION PENDING

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2), Appellants move for an immediate

stay of the preliminary injunction entered by the district court on September

the Motion for Stay of Injunction. (ECF No. 37).

policy adopted by the Western Michigan University (WMU) Department of

order to “maintain full involvement in the athletic department, all student-

of vaccination of, at a minimum, a first COVID-19 vaccine no later than August

accommodations will be considered on an individual basis.” (Id.)

WMU’s policy was challenged originally by four members of the WMU

ex parte TRO enjoining enforcement of the policy as to the named Plaintiffs,

as plaintiffs twelve addition WMU students who participate in athletic

to cover the additional plaintiffs pending a hearing on the motion for

preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 20).

injunction on September 9, 2021. At the conclusion of the hearing the district

directed at the Plaintiffs, as the record is devoid of any evidence of religious

license to expose their teammates to a heightened risk of exposure to COVID-

19. This ruling is incompatible with Free Exercise jurisprudence.

The Plaintiffs are all students at WMU and participants in programs

administered by the WMU Department of Intercollegiate Athletics. All Plaintiffs

are subject to the COVID-19 vaccination policy announced by Athletic Director

involvement in the athletic department, all student-athletes, coaches, and

athletic staff members” were required to provide proof of vaccination of, at a

policy then states: “Medical or religious exemptions and accommodations will

be considered on an individual basis.” (Id.)

each Plaintiff requested a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination

requirement while participating in intercollegiate athletics by submitting a

“Religious Accommodation Request Form” to WMU’s Office of Institutional

Plaintiffs be allowed to participate in the athletic programs while unvaccinated

their request to continue participating in the athletic program while

Plaintiff has continued as a student in good standing at WMU, remains on the

team roster, and those receiving athletic scholarships continue on scholarship.

who is unvaccinated but has not received either a medical or religious

exemption is in violation of the Code of Conduct and subject to discipline up to

Kathy Beauregard, ECF No. 18-2, ¶ 18, PageID 334 – 335.)

I. The Court should stay or suspend the injunction pending

scrutiny applied to WMU’s policy which is neutral toward religion and

when rational basis is applied.

under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a):

Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). A district court’s decision to grant a preliminary

erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the governing law, or used an

erroneous legal standard.” Id. at 746 (cleaned up).

B. Likelihood of success on the merits.

1. The WMU policy is neutral toward religion and generally

applicable and rational basis review should apply.

“Where a challenged law is neutral and of general applicability and has

merely an ‘incidental effect’ on Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, Defendants need not

exercise of religion is ‘merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and

of animus, it is not neutral and of general applicability if it is ‘riddled with

applicable policy and one that is not generally applicable:

As a rule of thumb, the more exceptions to a prohibition, the

Id. at 614 (emphasis added).

a religious exemption. WMU was not required to include a religious exemption

her religion. Constitutionally, Nikolao has no right to an exemption. See

(holding that compulsory vaccination laws with only medical exemptions do

(6th Cir. 2017).

WMU created a vaccine mandate that is neutral toward religion. It then

created a religious exemption that allowed student-athletes to forego

of grace. Ironically, the Plaintiffs’ Catch-22 position, which was essentially

has exposed itself to a claim of religious discrimination. This is inconsistent