The lawyer she sent them to had been disbarred - and it still cost her the job
A doctor who forwarded confidential company emails while fighting her hospital's vaccine mandate has lost her retaliation case against her former employer.
On July 13, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the physician did not engage in legally protected activity when she opposed a COVID-19 vaccine policy. Her firing, the court held, broke no employment law.
The doctor worked for St. Elizabeth Physicians (SEP) in Kentucky. In August 2021, the health system told staff to get vaccinated by October 1 or obtain "an exemption for medical or sincerely-held religious reasons." She objected on both scientific and religious grounds. She campaigned against the policy and helped circulate a petition signed by forty-seven medical professionals.
Along the way, she forwarded four internal company emails to a lawyer who was publicly advertising litigation against the hospital and preparing a class action. The court noted that the lawyer had been disbarred at the time, though the doctor said she believed he was a practicing attorney. She was not a party to that litigation, and she said she never asked the firm to represent her.
The timing mattered. She applied for a religious exemption on September 13. SEP granted it on September 17. Then, on October 4, the employer fired her anyway. The termination letter listed "for-cause" reasons: it said she had "misappropriated SEP property" by disclosing internal emails, and it cited policy violations, "disruptive and unprofessional conduct," and a breach of her "duty of loyalty."
She sued for retaliation under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, along with state-law claims. A district court granted summary judgment to the employer. The appeals court affirmed.
For HR teams, the reasoning is the useful part. Federal retaliation law shields two kinds of activity: taking part in a legal proceeding and opposing conduct an employee reasonably believes is unlawful. The court found neither applied here. Forwarding emails to a lawyer, when no lawsuit was active and she was not a party to any, was "indirect assistance at best" - not the direct participation the law protects. And her opposition failed a second test: no reasonable person, the court said, could have believed the exemption policy was unlawful, especially since she assumed her request would be approved, and it was.
One more wrinkle. Because she had a fixed-term contract rather than at-will employment, her state public-policy claim also failed. The court then upheld a one-year non-compete tied to the for-cause firing.
The lesson for employers is practical. Clear confidentiality, email, and non-disclosure policies gave the hospital solid footing. And activism against a workplace policy does not, on its own, turn into legally protected activity.
