A recent legal filing claims that an employer’s strict vaccination policy led to the withdrawal of a job offer after an applicant disclosed her need for a religious accommodation. The complaint was filed by Magnolia Little in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan on March 31, 2026, naming Family Health Center as the defendant.
According to the complaint, Magnolia Little applied for and was offered a position in April 2025 at Family Health Center, a non-profit healthcare provider headquartered in Kalamazoo, Michigan. During her interview process, Little informed her interviewer that she would require a religious exemption from any vaccination requirements. The interviewer reportedly responded, “Oh that’s fine, you just ask HR for that.” Relying on this assurance and the job offer, Little states she resigned from her previous employment and declined other opportunities.
The legal dispute centers on Family Health Center’s mandatory influenza vaccine policy, which requires all employees and job applicants to be vaccinated regardless of their work location or responsibilities. The complaint describes this requirement as absolute and states it does not allow alternatives such as periodic testing or mask-wearing.
After receiving notice of the vaccine requirement on April 16, 2025, Little contacted Human Resources requesting a religious exemption form. Her request was forwarded to Human Resources Manager Matt Rudolph, who indicated it was under consideration. Instead of engaging in further discussion about her beliefs or possible accommodations, Rudolph directed Little to pursue a non-medical waiver through local health departments—a process designed for children rather than adults seeking employment.
Little complied with these instructions by completing immunization waiver education at Calhoun County Health Department but was told by staff there that “the waiver approval she provides is for children and adults have to request the waiver approval from their place of employment.” On April 23, 2025, she submitted a formal written request for religious accommodation along with supporting documentation attesting to her long-standing beliefs.
Despite forwarding her request to the Chief Medical Officer for review on April 28, 2025, Family Health Center did not contact Little to discuss her beliefs or explore alternative accommodations. When Little suggested working remotely or wearing a mask during shifts as potential solutions, both options were rejected by management after consultation with medical leadership.
On May 5, 2025, Family Health Center rescinded its job offer. According to Rudolph’s communication cited in the complaint: “The flu shot is a condition of employment. I understand you do not wish to proceed with the shot. Therefore, you would be declining to move forward with the position based on that condition of employment and the position would not longer be available.”
The lawsuit alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), asserting that Family Health Center failed to engage in an interactive process required by law when considering requests for religious accommodation. The filing references multiple court precedents emphasizing employers’ obligations: “Once an employee makes [an accommodation] request, the employer is obligated by law to engage in an interactive process — a meaningful dialogue,” quoting Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., among others.
Little claims she suffered emotional distress and financial harm due to what she describes as intentional or reckless discrimination based on her sincerely held religious beliefs. She also alleges disparate treatment compared with other unvaccinated employees who did not share her beliefs but were allowed exemptions from vaccination requirements.
The complaint seeks several forms of relief: declarations that Family Health Center violated federal and state civil rights laws; compensatory and punitive damages; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; attorneys’ fees; costs; and any additional relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorneys Noah S. Hurwitz (P74063) and Colin H. Wilkin (P86243) of Hurwitz Law PLLC represent Magnolia Little in this case (Case No. 1:26-cv-01059). A demand for trial by jury has been made.
Source: 126cv01059_Magnolia_Little_v_Family_Health_Center_Complaint_Western_District_of_Michigan.pdf
