12/15/2025
A recent notable favorable case result for OGC Law was written up in the Legal Intelligencer (https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2025/12/12/fed-judge-rejects-magistrates-recommendation-to-dismiss-ada-claims-against-astrazeneca/) and Mealy's (https://plus.lexis.com/newsstand/mealeys/article/2421537). Excerpts from the Intelligencer article by Riley Brennan:
Fed. Judge Rejects Magistrate's Recommendation to Dismiss ADA ClaimsAgainst AstraZeneca
An Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim is moving forward against AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals after U.S. District Judge W. Scott Hardy this week determined that a former employee sufficiently established that the company perceived her immune system as weakened or otherwise affected or influenced because she refused the COVID-19 vaccine.
Tammy Siko, a former employee of AstraZeneca, alleged a “regarded as” disability discrimination claim under the ADA after she was fired for failing to get the COVID-19 vaccine. She alleged that the company discriminated against her and terminated her employment because it regarded her as being immunocompromised after she declined to abide by the vaccine mandate.
AstraZeneca moved to dismiss the disability discrimination claim, arguing Siko wasn’t “regarded as having such an impairment” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Sections 12102(1)(C) and (3),which defines disability and impairment.
However, the court determined that Siko sufficiently alleged her claim.
“Siko now avers additional factual allegations that AstraZeneca perceived her to being immunocompromised and infectious because she did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine and despite her natural immunity, and therefore it imposed more onerous requirements upon her, and then terminated her employment, whereas it did not subject Siko’s vaccinated coworkers to those more onerous conditions nor terminate their employment," Hardy said.
She alleged that employees who compiled with the mandate received an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine were "physically changed" by it and that because of this "physical difference," the defendant regarded her "as having a physiological condition limiting her immune system due to her unvaccinated status and despite her natural immunity, and thus considered her to be much more likely to be infected by COVID-19 than vaccinated employees, thereby rendering her unable to perform her job."
In its analysis of the second amended complaint, the court noted that it was tasked with determining whether Siko pleaded that she was “regarded as having such an impairment” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101(1)(C) and (3). In defining the term impairment, the court concluded that "the best reading of the ADA’s clear and unambiguous statutory text is that an 'impairment' in the context of whether a person is 'regarded as' disabled within the meaning of 42U.S.C. §§ 12102 (1)(C) and (3)(A) is the actual or perceived weakening, diminishment, or deterioration of a major bodily function or other major life activity, even if such impairment does not 'limit' or be perceived to 'limit' any of those major bodily functions or other major life activities."
Therefore, it concluded that someone regarded as having such an impairment included those "with an actual or perceived physical state of being or health condition 'affecting' or 'influencing' his or her immune system." The court looked to determine whether Siko alleged facts that the defendant perceived her immune system to be "impaired," meaning it was "affected" or otherwise "influenced," noting that Siko simply needed to "allege facts that AstraZeneca perceived her immune system to be affected or influenced, though not necessarily limited or substantially limited."
Hardy concluded Siko met this requirement by alleging that she was discriminated against and terminated because AstraZeneca regarded her as being immunocompromised after she declined to abide by its vaccine mandate.
Gregory H. Teufel, of OGC Law in Pittsburgh, represented the plaintiff and noted that they are pleased with the ruling. Teufel shared his belief that Judge Hardy's opinion on the claim was a strong one, noting his background in employment litigation.
Sarah E. Bouchard, of Morgan Lewis in Philadelphia, represented the defendant and did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
