CAUSE NO.

_____________

AMANDA STEVENSON, VICENTE SUAREZ,§ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

BREANN EMSHOFF, RON TOCCI, §
AMANDA LOFTON, ASHLEY MCGRATH, §
MALACHI GIBSON, BRETT COOK, §
STEFANIE MARTINEZ, DARRON CREWS §
MARY LU STEPHENS, DEANNA CONWAY, §
YALANDA JONES, TAMEKA CLARK, §
KATHY TOFTE, NATASHA RENAUD, §
NATALIE SALVIDE, DEREK TREVATHAN,§
DINA AMAYA, MARIA PEREZ, AMANDA §
RIVERA, MANDY SISTO, AQUARIUS §
GRADY, CEDRICK GREEN, KIMBERLY §
BURNHAM, MELISSA SMITH, PAIGE §
THOMAS, GERARDO GARZA, CERANISE §
ALCINDOR, KAYLAN TIMMONS, SCOTT §
ANDERSON, EMILEE SMITH, SHELBY §
THIMONS, THOMAS MULKEY, MARIA §
RODRIGUEZ, CHELSEY REED, AMANDA § MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
CASTRO, BECKY MELCER, ISMAEL §
LATORRE, JAVIER ROSAS, JONATHAN §
THEALL, JANET ROBISON, TANISHA §
HATCHET, NATALIE EDWARDS, §
GREGORY NOWLING, LATOREA JONES, §
TINAEE THOMAS, TALISHA SMITH, §
PEGGY GENTZEL, ERIKA THOMAS, §
ALIYA SCOTT, DOMINICMA (MICKEY) §
SURGERS-KAMARA, ROSIO MARTINEZ, §
NATALIE RICHARD, SHAYNA LINCOLN, §
ANNA SOBERANO-HATHORN, DARLA §
PIERCE, COLLEEN SHEPHERD, STACEY §
MARTINEZ, LANDA WRIGHT, AND BRIAN§
MATTHEWS §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
V. §
§
THE METHODIST HOSPITAL D/B/A THE §
METHODIST HOSPITAL SYSTEM, AND §
HOUSTON METHODIST THE WOODLANDS §
HOSPITAL, §
§
Defendants. § ______JUDICIAL DISTRICT

1
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

COME NOW, AMANDA STEVENSON, et al., Plaintiffs herein, and file this Original

Petition against Defendants THE METHODIST HOSPITAL doing business as THE

METHODIST HOSPITAL SYSTEM and METHODIST HEALTH CENTERS doing business as

HOUSTON METHODIST THE WOODLANDS HOSPITAL, and would show the following to

this Honorable Court:

I.
PARTIES

Plaintiff, Amanda Stevenson, is an adult individual residing in Montgomery County,

Texas, and was previously an employee at Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital.

Plaintiff, Vicente Suarez, is an adult individual residing in Montgomery County, Texas,

and was previously an employee at Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital.

Plaintiff, Breann Emshoff, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital.

Plaintiff, Ron Tocci, is an adult individual residing in Montgomery County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital.

Plaintiff, Amanda Lofton, is an adult individual residing in Montgomery County, Texas,

and was previously an employee at Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital.

Plaintiff, Ashley McGrath, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital.

Plaintiff, Malachi Gibson, is an adult individual residing in Wharton County, Texas, and is

currently an employee at Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital.

Plaintiff, Brett Cook, is an adult individual residing in Lubbock County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital.

2
 Plaintiff, Stefanie Martinez, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist.

Plaintiff, Darron Crews, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital.

Plaintiff, Mary Lu Stephens, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital.

Plaintiff, Deanne Conway, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital.

Plaintiff, Yalanda Jones, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist West Hospital.

Plaintiff, Tameka Clark, is an adult individual residing in Fort Bend County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Sugar Land Hospital.

Plaintiff, Kathy Tofte, is an adult individual residing in Montgomery County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital.

Plaintiff, Natasha Renaud, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Clear Lake Hospital.

Plaintiff, Natalie Salvide, is an adult individual residing in Fort Bend County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Urology Sugar Land.

Plaintiff, Derek Trevathan, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Dina Amaya, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Sugar Land Hospital.

3
 Plaintiff, Maria Perez, is an adult individual residing in Montgomery County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital.

Plaintiff, Amanda Rivera, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Baytown Hospital.

Plaintiff, Mandy Sisto, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital.

Plaintiff, Aquarius Grady, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Cedrick Green, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Kimberly Burnham, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist West Hospital.

Plaintiff, Melissa Smith, is an adult individual residing in Galveston County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Clear Lake.

Plaintiff, Paige Thomas, is an adult individual residing in Galveston County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Clear Lake.

Plaintiff, Gerardo Garza, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Ceranise Alcindor, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist West Hospital.

Plaintiff, Kaylan Timmons, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital.

4
 Plaintiff, Scott Anderson, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital.

Plaintiff, Emilee Smith, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Shelby Thimons, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital.

Plaintiff, Thomas Mulkey, is an adult individual residing in Fort Bend County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Maria Rodriguez, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at The Methodist Hospital.

Plaintiff, Chelsey Reed, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Amanda Castro, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Baytown Hospital.

Plaintiff, Becky Melcer, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital.

Plaintiff, Ismael La Torre, is an adult individual residing in Fort Bend County, Texas.

Plaintiff, Javier Rosas, is an adult individual residing in Fort Bend County, Texas.

Plaintiff, Jonathan Theall, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas.

Plaintiff, Janet Robison, is an adult individual residing in Galveston County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Clear Lake Hospital.

Plaintiff, Tanisha Hatchet, is an adult individual residing in Fort Bend County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Sugar Land Hospital.

5
 Plaintiff, Natalie Edwards, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Gregory Nowling, is an adult individual residing in Chambers County, Texas,

and was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Baytown Hospital.

Plaintiff, Latorea Jones, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Tinaee Thomas, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Talisha Smith, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist West Hospital and Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Peggy Gentzel, is an adult individual residing in Galveston County, Texas, and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Clear Lake Hospital.

Plaintiff, Erika Thomas, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Aliya Scott, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas, and was

previously an employee at The Methodist Hospital.

Plaintiff, Dominicma (Mickey) Surgers-Kamara, is an adult individual residing in Harris

County, Texas and was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical

Center.

Plaintiff, Rosio Martinez, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital.

Plaintiff, Natalie Richard, is an adult individual residing in Tarrant County, Texas and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Clear Lake Hospital.

6
 Plaintiff, Shayna Lincoln, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Anna Soberano-Hathorn, is an adult individual residing in Fort Bend County,

Texas and was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Sugar Land Hospital.

Plaintiff, Darla Pierce, is an adult individual residing in Brazoria County, Texas and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Colleen Shepherd, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Stacey Martinez, is an adult individual residing in Fort Bend County, Texas and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Hospital – Texas Medical Center.

Plaintiff, Landa Wright, is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas and was

previously an employee at Houston Methodist Baytown Hospital.

Plaintiff, Brian Matthews, is an adult individual residing in Galveston County, Texas and

was previously an employee at Houston Methodist Clear Lake Hospital.

Defendant, The Methodist Hospital doing business as The Methodist Hospital System

(“Methodist”), is a corporation duly authorized to conduct business within the State of Texas.

Defendant may be served through its registered agent: CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street,

Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136.

Defendant, Methodist Health Centers doing business as Houston Methodist The

Woodlands Hospital (“The Woodlands Hospital”), is a corporation duly authorized to conduct

business within the State of Texas located at 17201 Interstate 45, The Woodlands, Montgomery

County, Texas, 77385. Defendant may be served through its registered agent: CT Corporation

System, 199 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136.

7
 II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under the Texas Constitution, Article V, § 8, as

the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the court of exclusive

interest. Plaintiffs seek relief that can be granted by courts of law or equity.

The court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, Tex.

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §37.001 et seq. In addition, jurisdiction is proper because the amount in

controversy satisfies the jurisdictional limits of this Court and all parties are subject to personal

jurisdiction in Texas.

Jurisdiction over attorneys’ fees requested by Plaintiff herein is conferred upon this Court

by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §37.009. Jurisdiction to award the declaratory relief requested

herein is conferred upon this Court by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §37.004.

Venue is proper in Montgomery County, Texas pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

§§15.002(a) and 15.032 because the cause of action arose in Montgomery County, Texas because

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Montgomery

County, Texas and because loss occurred in Montgomery County, Texas.

III.
FACTS

This is a case of first impression.

On April 1, 2021, Defendants Methodist and The Woodlands Hospital issued a policy

“requiring mandatory immunization of all covered Houston Methodist (HM) employees.” 1 The

deadline set by which employees must be vaccinated or be terminated from their employment was

June 9, 2021. In an email to employees after the mandatory vaccine deadline lapsed, CEO Dr.

1 See Exhibit 1
8
Marc Boom stated, “I wish the number could be zero, but unfortunately, a small number of

individuals have decided to not put their patients first.”2 This passive-aggressive swipe at those

who opted out of taking the experimental non-FDA approved COVID-19 vaccine extends also to

the medical community at large in Houston.

Many other hospital systems do not have a vaccine mandate. Are these hospital systems

failing to “put their patients first?” The answer is “no,” because there is no failure. If this were

truly about putting patients first, every single hospital system, medical provider, facility,

clinic, and office would have banded together to mandate vaccines. Yet, there stands Methodist

Hospital, claiming it is unique in “putting patients first.” At the middle of this public relations stunt

are the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (“VAERS”) was put in place in 1990. It is

a voluntary reporting system that has been estimated to account for only 1% of vaccine injuries.

Based on VAERS 3 as of July 30, 2021, there were reported:

2
See Exhibit 2, text of the June 8, 2019, email from CEO Marc Boom to Methodist employees.
3 In 1990, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting Systems (“VAERS”) was established as a national early
warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S. licensed vaccines.
9
 12,366 deaths, and

46,036 hospitalizations.4

By comparison, from July 1, 1997, until December 31, 2013, VAERS received 666 adult

death reports for all vaccines. 5

With approximately 50% of the U.S. population vaccinated, mortality is not the only

serious adverse event that has been reported after the COVID-19 vaccine. Additional morbidity

reported to the CDC and verified with a permanent VAERS number include:

68, 040 urgent care visits

92,527 office visits

4,759 cases of anaphylaxis

4,044 cases of Bell’s Palsy

12,194 life threatening events

5,236 heart attacks

3,728 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis

2,269 cases of thrombocytopenia/low platelet

1,381 miscarriages

23,354 severe allergic reactions

14,251 disabling illnesses. 6

Based on the above data (from a CDC-monitored database), one wonders whether CEO Boom is

risking employees becoming patients that Methodist can “put first.”

4
VAERS may be publicly accessed at https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data.
5
Id. See also Pedro L. Moro, Jorge Arana, Mria Cano, Paige Lewis, and Tom T. Shimabukuro, Deaths
Reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, United States, 1997-2013, VACCINES, CID
2015:61 (September 2015).
6
https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data.
10
 IV.
SABINE PILOT-WRONGFUL TERMINATION

Pursuant to Texas state law, Plaintiffs plead a cause of action against Defendants for

wrongful termination under the Sabine Pilot exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The

allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this Petition are hereby realleged and

incorporated herein for all purposes with the same force and effect as if set forth verbatim herein.

In Sabine Pilot v. Service, Inc. v. Hauck, the Supreme Court of Texas created a public

policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985). This

exception allows an employee to sue for wrongful termination if he is fired for the sole reason that

he refused to perform an illegal act. Texas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 633

(Tex. 1995); see Safeshred, Inc. v. Martinez, 365 S.W.3d 655, 664 (Tex. 2012) ("A plaintiff may

not bring a Sabine Pilot claim immediately after being asked to perform an illegal activity but must

first refuse and be fired.").

In Johnson v Del Mar Distributing Co., Inc. 776 S.W.2d 768 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi

1989, writ denied), the court extended the Sabine Pilot exception to a situation where the employee

simply inquired into the legality of a work function. The court reasoned, “While we acknowledge

that the facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts in Sabine Pilot, we nonetheless find

that the public policy exception created in Sabine Pilot applies to the instant case.” The Texas

Supreme Court denied writ on this case giving at least an implied nod to the holding and extension

of the doctrine.

The Plaintiffs refused to take an experimental non-FDA approved vaccine and were then

wrongfully terminated from their employment with each Defendant.

11
 V.
DEFENDANTS VIOLATE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

The public policy of the state of Texas demands an exemption to the employment-at-will

doctrine for those who are terminated for refusing to be injected with an experimental non-FDA

approved vaccine. Specifically, Defendants forced COVID-19 injection policy is contrary to the

public policy of this state. On April 6, 2021, Governor Greg Abbott issued Executive Order No.

GA-35 prohibiting state agencies or political subdivisions in Texas from creating a "vaccine

passport" requirement, or otherwise conditioning receipt of services on an individual’s COVID-

19 vaccination status. 7 The order also prohibits organizations receiving public funds from

requiring consumers to provide documentation of vaccine status in order to receive any service or

enter any place.8 Governor Abbott has stated, "Everyday, Texans are returning to normal life as

more people get the safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine. But, as I've said all along, these

vaccines are always voluntary and never forced." 9 To further emphasize his position and the public

policy of the state of Texas, Governor Abbott stated, "Government should not require any Texan

to show proof of vaccination and reveal private health information just to go about their daily lives.

That is why I have issued an Executive Order that prohibits government-mandated vaccine

passports in Texas. We will continue to vaccinate more Texans and protect public health — and

we will do so without treading on Texans' personal freedoms." 10

A. COVID-19 Experimental Injection Efficacy – Breakthrough Infections

Demonstrating Problems with Experimental Vaccine

As the Delta variant continues to circulate, those injected with the experimental non-FDA

approved vaccine are developing so-called breakthrough infections — defined as those that occur

7 Exhibit 3.
8 Id.
9
Exhibit 4.
10
Id.
12
two weeks or more after completion of their vaccine regimen, be it a one - or two-dose version.

On July 29, 2021, a study involving breakthrough infections was published by Eurosurveillance. 11

The study stated, “The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Delta

variant of concern (Phylogenetic Assignment of Named Global Outbreak (Pango) lineage

designation B.1.617.2) has been suggested to be more transmissible than the Alpha (B.1.1.7)

variant, which is more transmissible than the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus. We describe here an

outbreak caused by the Delta variant that originated from one inpatient in a secondary care hospital

and spread within the hospital and to three primary care facilities; we describe our experiences in

controlling it. Cases were detected among patients, healthcare workers (HCW) and in the

community. Both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections were found among vaccinated HCW

[Health Care Workers], and secondary transmission occurred from those with symptomatic

infections despite use of personal protective equipment (PPE).” 12 The study found: “In

conclusion, this outbreak demonstrated that, despite full vaccination and universal masking of

HCW, breakthrough infections by the Delta variant via symptomatic and asymptomatic HCW

occurred, causing nosocomial infections.13

Recent data out of Israel raises serious issues regarding the efficacy of the experimental

11
Exhibit 5.
12
Id. A finish hospital C19 delta variant outbreak recently caused 103 infections among healthcare
workers/and inpatients, and 18 elderly inpatient deaths: TWO-THIRDS of infections (66%) and deaths
(67%) occurred in those partially or fully mRNA vaxed, vs. unvaxed. Two-thirds (12/18) of the deaths
occurred among those patients (62+ yo, median 80yo, all with co-morbidity) who were fully or partially
vaccinated. 44/58 [76%] of the infections among the patients occurred in those fully or partially vaccinated.
24/45 [53%] of the infections among the healthcare workers occurred in those fully or partially vaccinated.
“For the deceased case-patients, the median age was 80 years (range: 62–96), 11 were men, one was
vaccinated with two doses, 11 with one dose and six were unvaccinated. For the majority of the deceased
case-patients, COVID-19 likely contributed to their death. All had an underlying condition requiring
hospital treatment prior to COVID-19 infection. There were 45 healthcare worker-cases in four healthcare
facilities (the central hospital and three primary care facilities). There were no hospitalizations or deaths
among the healthcare worker-cases.
13
Id.
13
non-FDA approved Covid-19 injection. Dr. Kobi Haviv, Director of the Herzog Hospital in

Jerusalem, Israel, recently stated that “the effectiveness of the [coronavirus] vaccine is really

fading.” 14 “Most of the population [in Israel] is vaccinated,” said Dr. Haviv, and “85-90% of the

hospitalizations are fully vaccinated people.”15

B. Those who have experienced COVID-19 Have natural immunity

Despite over 140 million SARS-CoV-2 infections many of the plaintiffs have previously

contracted COVID-19 while working for Defendants. As a result, they now have immunity from

reinfection.16 However, Defendant’s injection mandate makes no exception for these individuals.

Worldwide since the beginning of the pandemic, relatively few confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2

reinfection have been reported. 17 Studies have concluded that immunity from SARS-CoV-2

infection is probable.18 Across numerous studies, the total number of PCR-positive or antibody-

positive participants at baseline was 615,777, and the maximum duration of the follow-up was

more than 10 months in three studies. 19 Reinfection was an uncommon event (absolute rate 0%-

1.1%), with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time. 20 The data suggest

that naturally acquired SARS-CoV-2 immunity does not wane for at least 10 months post-infection

if not longer. 21 Despite the immunity Plaintiffs acquired while treating patients infected with

Covid-19, Plaintiffs were fired for refusing to be injected with an experimental non-FDA approved

Covid-19 vaccine.

14
www.americanfaith.com/vaxxed-make-up-85-90-of-the-hospitalizations-from-infection-in-israel-dr-
kobi-haviv/
15
Id.
16
Exhibit 6.
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
Id.
21
Id.
14
 VI.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to

enter judgment against the Defendants as set out above and grant all such other and further relief

to which Plaintiffs may show themselves justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

WOODFILL LAW FIRM, P.C.

/s/ Jared R. Woodfill

Jared R. Woodfill
Texas Bar Number 00788715
3 Riverway, Suite 750
Houston, Texas 77056
(713) 751-3080 Telephone
(713) 751-3058 Facsimile
Email: woodfillservice@gmail.com (service only)
Email: jwoodfill@woodfilllaw.com (non-service only)
Attorney for the Plaintiffs

15