She wanted the same deal her co-workers got — the hospital said no, then fired her
The federal government is suing an Illinois hospital for allegedly denying a religious vaccine exemption it was already granting to other employees.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the lawsuit on March 26 in the Northern District of Illinois (EEOC v. Silver Cross Hospital, No. 1:26-cv-03343), alleging that Silver Cross Hospital in New Lenox violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it refused a religious accommodation to employee Janette Nordstrom-Mossberger and subsequently terminated her.
According to the EEOC's filing, Silver Cross introduced a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy in August 2021, requiring all employees to be vaccinated by the end of October that year. The policy included a process for religious and medical exemptions, and employees who received one were required to undergo weekly testing and wear a surgical mask.
Nordstrom-Mossberger, a Christian, submitted her exemption request on or about August 25, 2021, using the hospital's religious declination form and including a letter from her pastor. Her objection stemmed from her religious beliefs against abortion and her understanding that the vaccine's development involved aborted fetal stem cells.
The hospital denied her request on or about September 10, 2021. She appealed, reiterating her religious objections and citing Christian scripture. That appeal was denied on or about September 24. She filed another appeal the same day. It was also denied, on October 29, 2021.
On or about November 15, 2021, Silver Cross terminated her.
What makes this case particularly relevant for HR professionals is the EEOC's central allegation: the hospital could have simply offered Nordstrom-Mossberger the same weekly testing-and-masking arrangement it was already extending to other exempted employees — including at least one who worked in the operating room and whose job involved patient contact. The agency alleges this accommodation would not have caused the hospital any undue hardship.
The EEOC also alleges retaliation, tying Nordstrom-Mossberger's termination to her pursuit of a religious accommodation.
Before bringing suit, the agency issued a determination in April 2025 finding reasonable cause to believe the hospital had violated the law. Attempts at conciliation were unsuccessful, and a notice of failure of conciliation followed in May 2025.
The EEOC is seeking backpay, reinstatement, compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and a permanent injunction. The agency alleges the hospital acted intentionally and with malice or reckless indifference to Nordstrom-Mossberger's rights under federal law. A jury trial has been requested. No court has made a determination on the merits of these claims.
For HR leaders, the case puts a sharp point on a question that has outlived the pandemic itself: when an accommodation framework exists and exemptions are being granted to some employees, how do you justify withholding the same from others in comparable roles? The EEOC's willingness to litigate these matters years later suggests that inconsistency in how religious exemptions are applied remains firmly on the agency's radar.
