Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KATHERINE TALBOT,

Plaintiff Case No. __________________

v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MAYOR MURIEL BOWSER, in her

individual capacity

DC HEALTH

DR. LAQUANDRA NESBITT, DIRECTOR

OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, in her
individual capacity

JOHN DOES 1-20

Defendants

COMPLAINT

“The constitutional right of freedom of religion is the most inalienable and sacred of all

human rights.” -– Thomas Jefferson

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Katherine Talbot, by and through the undersigned counsel and

brings this suit, claiming Defendants’ forcing Plaintiff to take a Covid-19 vaccination runs afoul

of her sincerely held religious beliefs. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief enjoining

Defendants from forcing Plaintiff to make a choice between taking a vaccine that is against her
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 2 of 23

own sincerely held religious beliefs or being denied a license to practice nursing, stating the

following for their Verified Complaint:

PARTIES

1. Katherine Talbot is a natural person residing at 4003 Ames St NE, Washington,

D.C. 20019.

2. Ms. Talbot applied for a nursing license with the District of Columbia Department

of Health.

3. Ms. Talbot is a devout Christian who follows the teachings of the Bible and is

morally bound and guided by the teachings of her Christian beliefs.

4. Ms. Talbot takes solace in and finds personal identity and autonomy in exercising

her sincerely held Christian beliefs.

5. Ms. Talbot has not taken any of the Covid-19 vaccines.

6. Ms. Talbot sincerely believes the Bible’s teachings and her sincerely held

religious beliefs preclude her from having any of the Covid-19 vaccines injected into her body.

7. Ms. Talbot holds the sincere religious belief that people have a duty to live their

life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible.

8. As a part of her personal identity and individual autonomy, Ms. Talbot sincerely

believes that she has a duty and obligation to live a life of faith in every facet of her life,

including the making of intimate, personal medical decisions.

9. Defendant Muriel Bowser is and was at all times relevant hereto the duly-elected

Mayor of the District of Columbia and as such was responsible for the promulgation and

implementation of the policies, procedures, and practices of the District of Columbia. She is

named as a defendant in this action in her individual capacity as Mayor.

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 2 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 3 of 23

10. Defendant District of Columbia is and was at all times relevant hereto a municipal

corporation and was and is responsible for the policies, procedures, and practices implemented

through its various agencies, agents, departments, and employees.

11. Defendant Dr. LaQuandra Nesbit is and was at all times relevant hereto the duly

appointed Director of Health for the District of Columbia and as such was responsible for the

promulgation and implementation of the policies, procedures, and practices of the District of

Columbia Department of Health. She is a named defendant in this action in her individual

capacity as the Director of Health.

12. Defendants John Doe 1 – 20 are other individuals whose identities are unknown

to Plaintiff at this time and who may be responsible for the conduct alleged in this Complaint.

13. During all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants have acted and continue to

act under the color of the District of Columbia laws.

14. Defendants are responsible for designing, adopting, approving, authorizing,

implementing, and enforcing the workplace policies, practices, customs, and procedures of the DC

Department of Health.

15. Defendants have required Plaintiff to comply with the terms and mandatory Covid-

19 vaccination requirements or be denied a nursing license and/or subject to disciplinary measures.

16. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights.

JURISDICTION

17. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343. Claims

are asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 28 U.S.C. §2201 and 2202. Supplemental claims

are asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 3 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 4 of 23

18. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). All Defendants

perform their official duties in this district. In addition, a substantial part of the events giving rise

to the claims in this Complaint arose in this district because the requirement for vaccination will

be enforced in this district and because all of the actions of the Defendants that are the subject of

this Complaint occurred in this district.

FACTS RELATED TO ALLEGATIONS

19. Katherine Talbot is a devout Christian. Ms. Talbot’s commitment to her religious

beliefs have allowed her to travel throughout the world to spread Christ’s teachings. She has

advocated for pro-life causes in Indonesia as part of her religiously-based high school class

work. Ms. Talbot abides by a Christian theory of human rights, derived from the idea of Imago

Dei (humans are created in the image of God), embedded in Christian and other theologies, and

enshrined in the inherent and natural, God-given, right to bodily integrity, which has been

reiterated in the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

20. Ms. Talbot received a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) from George

Washington University School of Nursing (“GWU”). Ms. Talbot completed more than 600

hours of supervised direct patient care before being conferred the degree in January 2022. All of

the supervised direct patient hours were completed during the pandemic. Ms. Talbot received a

religious exemption from the requirement to receive a COVID 19 vaccine while at GWU.

21. Ms. Talbot received a job offer from MedStar Washington Hospital Center

(“Medstar”) to work as a Clinical Nurse on the high-risk labor and delivery unit. Ms. Talbot

applied for and was granted an exemption from the MedStar requirement to be vaccinated on

February 14, 2022.

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 4 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 5 of 23

22. Ms. Talbot was denied a religious exemption by DC Health which prevents Ms.

Talbot from taking the test to show competency as a Nurse (NCLEX) or from receiving a

Supervised Letter of Practice from the DC Board of Nursing.

23. As has been well documented, the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which can

lead to Covid-19, has taken the world by storm, shutting down businesses, national and

international transportation, and schools. In early March 2020, COVID-19 was confirmed to be

present in the District of Columbia. See https://coronavirus.dc.gov/release/dc-department-health-

confirms-first-coronavirus-case (last visited February 28, 2022). In an attempt to mitigate the

spread and “flatten the curve,” public officials at all levels of government implemented various

policies. Among those policies implemented were conducting as much public and private

business as possible remotely; requiring individuals to wear masks; the installation of plexiglass

dividers; and social distancing. Many of those policies did not, and do not, infringe on a person’s

Constitutional rights.

24. In conjunction with these policies, the federal government engaged in “Operation

Warp Speed,” which was a partnership with various pharmaceutical companies to hasten the

development of a vaccine for Covid-19. See https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-319 (last

visited February 28, 2022). Three vaccines for widespread use resulted from Operation Warp

Speed – the Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines.

25. Covid vaccinations were available as early as December 2020 for healthcare

workers. Throughout 2021, vaccinations were made available for adults. The Mayor of DC and

DC Health, through an emergency authorization of 22 DCMR Sections 230 and 231, announced

that no later than September 30, 2021, healthcare workers in the District of Columbia must have

at least begun the vaccination process. See https://coronavirus.dc.gov/release/mayor-bowser-

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 5 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 6 of 23

and-dc-health-announce-vaccination-requirement-district-health-professionals (last visited

February 28, 2022). The announcement included that healthcare professionals may be exempted

from the vaccine requirement due to religious beliefs or medical conditions.

26. Sections 230 and 231 were adopted as final on November 10, 2021, and became

effective on December 10, 2021. 68 DCR 13014. Section 230 requires persons licensed pursuant

to § 501(a)(1) of the District of Columbia Health Occupations Revisions Act of 1985 (DC

Official Code § 3-1205.1(a)(1)), including registered and practical nurses, to comply with the

vaccination requirements, unless they have been granted an exemption under § 231, or be subject

to disciplinary and enforcement actions, including denial of the person’s license. 22 DCMR §

230.3; 22 DCMR § 230.6.

27. Section 231 allows a person who is otherwise required to be vaccinated be exempt

if the person is granted an exemption because the person objects in good faith and in writing that

adherence to the requirement would violate the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs (22

DCMR § 231.1(a)) or if medical certification is submitted that shows that vaccination is

medically unadvisable. 22 DCMR § 231.1(b). The request for an exemption must be submitted

to the Director or a designee of the Department of Health and will be effective after the Director

or a designee has granted the exemption in writing. 22 DCMR § 231.3-4.

28. The municipal regulations do not set forth the criteria for granting or denying a

request for exemption. However, the Department of Health responded to comments made during

the Notice requirement regarding this concern by stating: “Submission instructions were

communicated to health professionals, health care facilities, and emergency medical services

agencies separate from the rulemaking. Exemptions are decided based on the applicable legal

standards that exist outside of the rulemaking.” 68 DCR 13014

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 6 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 7 of 23

29. In addressing concerns that the regulations did not provide the level of detail or

supporting documentation necessary, the Department of Health stated: “Regulations need not

provide forms for all matters that a rulemaking touches upon, and requests are assessed on a

case-by-case basis, sometimes through information obtained through dialogue with the requester

or otherwise outside the materials submitted, rather than solely through the documentation

submitted.” Id.

30. The Department of Health is responsible for ensuring that applicants for a nursing

license adhere to certain criteria, such as meeting the graduation requirements, passing the

NCLEX, and, as of late, being fully vaccinated unless an exemption has been granted. The

Department of Health issues an Authorization to Test (ATT) which allows the applicant to take

the NCLEX. Once a passing score on the NCLEX is achieved, as well as other requirements

met, the Department of Health and the Board of Nursing (BON) issue a license.

31. If the applicant has been offered and accepted a job as a nurse, but has not yet

taken the NCLEX, BON may issue a Supervised Letter of Practice authorizing the applicant to

work as a Graduate Nurse until the applicant has taken and passed the NCLEX. If BON has not

been provided information from the Department of Health that the applicant has complied with

vaccination requirement, BON will not issue a Supervised Letter of Practice. Without a

Supervised Letter of Practice, Medstar will employ an applicant only under the category of

Student Nurse Extern.

32. Ms. Talbot submitted the required information for licensure as a practical nurse to

the D.C. Department of Health on November 11, 2021. Ms. Talbot included a request for a

religious exemption from the requirement to receive the COVID 19 vaccine. In the

communication to DC Health, Ms. Talbot cited her religious principles. Ms. Talbot stated she

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 7 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 8 of 23

could not practice her faith if she received the vaccine as the ingredients of the vaccines available

by Emergency Use Authorization utilized cell lines from aborted fetuses. Ms. Talbot believes

that life begins at conception and turns to Psalm 139:13-16 for proof that God has a plan for each

soul not yet born and that terminating a pregnancy would be a sin against God.

33. By January 18, 2021, Ms. Talbot had not heard anything regarding the status of

her request. Until the religious exemption was granted, Ms. Talbot could not receive an

Authorization to Test and therefore could not schedule the NCLEX (required for both licensure

and Ms. Talbot’s employment). Ms. Talbot sent an email to the email address provided for

religious exemption requests (dchealthrelexemption2@dc.gov) asking for a status update on the

request. Ms. Talbot explained that she was beginning a job on February 21, 2022, and needed to

take the NCLEX as soon as possible. Ms. Talbots asked that the exemption be granted and

forwarded to the Board of Nursing as soon as possible.

34. Along with the January 18, 2022, email, Ms. Talbot included a second request for

a religious exemption, just in case the November 11, 2021, request was not received. This

request gave a more extensive explanation of how being forced to receive a vaccination would be

against her religious beliefs. Ms. Talbot explained that belonged she to the Protestant faith and

grew up in a Christian home. Ms. Talbot prays multiple times per day, worships on a constant

basis, and gathers with others who share her religious beliefs on a regular basis. Ms. Talbot’s

religious beliefs encompass her core values. She has spoken to groups of people in numerous

countries, including the United States, about how her life has been enriched through the faithful

practice of her religion.

35. Ms. Talbot reiterated the importance of the sanctity of life as evidenced in Psalms

139:13-16. Ms. Talbot also stated that 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 demonstrated the significance of

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 8 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 9 of 23

the human body and commands believers to protect their bodies from unnecessary harms. Ms.

Talbot explained that she took this Bible passage to heart and tailored her activities so as to do no

intentional harm to her body. Ms. Talbot does not drink alcohol. Ms. Talbot does not use

tanning beds. Ms. Talbot does not take abusive drugs. Ms. Talbot does not smoke. Ms. Talbot

makes decisions every day that ensure that her activities and choices will do no harm to her

body.

36. Ms. Talbot acknowledged that the pandemic was a horrific reality and the

decision to become vaccinated required contemplation. Ms. Talbot consulted with mentors and

studied the CDC recommendations in an effort to fully understand the ethical considerations of

vaccination. Ms. Talbot consulted with leaders of her faith and family members, as well as

available scientific studies regarding the potential harm of the COVID 19 vaccinations available.

This was no easy task for Ms. Talbot as she was faced with a decision between harming her body

and the possibility of contracting COVID 19 or any of the variants. Ms. Talbot was concerned

about the vaccine’s development which utilized cell lines from aborted fetuses. Ms. Talbot was

concerned that the CDC did not offer any information regarding the long-term effects on fertility

– the long-term effects which may not be known for years or even decades. And Ms. Talbot was

concerned about the number of listed side effects and contraindications associated with a COVID

vaccine. Ms. Talbot included references and links to the information used to inform her decision.

Ultimately, Ms. Talbot relied upon her faith’s dictates that she not intentionally harm her body in

deciding that receiving the vaccination would be against her sincerely held religious beliefs.

37. On January 28, 2022, Ms. Talbot went to DC Health to see if there was a way to

confirm the requests had been received and if a decision could be made as soon as possible to

allow her to sit for the NCLEX by February 7, 2022, a requirement for her job with MedStar.

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 9 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 10 of 23

The person available to speak with her advised Ms. Talbot that the only person who could help

was Arian Gibson. Ms. Talbot then sent an email to Mr. Gibson, sharing the information that

had been submitted to DC Health and asking that Mr. Gibson help in any way he could.

38. On February 3, 2022, Ms. Talbot followed up with Mr. Gibson. Ms. Talbot sent a

third email to Mr. Gibson on February 4, 2022. Ms. Talbot has not received any response from

Mr. Gibson regarding the requests. On February 9, 2022, Ms. Talbot phoned DC Health

Licensing Regulation and was given Mr. Gibson’s phone number. Ms. Talbot left a message for

Mr. Gibson on his voicemail. Mr. Gibson returned Ms. Talbot’s phone call that day and stated

the case would be escalated to the correct people for a prompt decision.

39. On February 13, 2022, at 7:20 PM, Ms. Talbot received an email from

dchealthrelexemption2@dc.gov. Attached to the email was a denial of the request for a religious

exemption. Neither the email nor the letter gave any information as to who had made the

decision. The denial letter contained incorrect information by stating that DC Health had

requested additional information regarding the request for the exemption on January 3, 2022, and

that Ms. Talbot had responded on January 4, 2022. Ms. Talbot sent an email back to

dchealthrelexemption2@dc.gov advising that they were relying on incorrect information as she

had not been contacted by anyone at DC Health other than Mr. Gibson on February 9, 2022.

40. The letter provided that a grant of a religious exemption required an analysis of

whether the exemption would not result in undue hardship. No explanation was offered regarding

what the undue hardship would be or how Ms. Talbot’s exemption would exacerbate a hardship

that already existed. The only reason given for the denial of the exemption was a general

statement that an exemption would create an undue hardship on DC Health.

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 10 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 11 of 23

41. Ms. Talbot expressed disbelief that DC Health was claiming that the approval of a

religious exemption would cause undue hardship on DC Health as there was no information

within the letter to support the claim. Ms. Talbot advised DC Health that the religious exemption

allowed her to work in the healthcare field without violating her Constitutional right to freely

exercise her religion. Ms. Talbot further stated that the denial was legally untenable,

discriminatory, and causing Ms. Talbot irreparable harm.

42. On Monday February 14, 2022, at 10:48 PM, Ms. Talbot received an email from

dchealthrelexemption2@dc.gov which simply stated that she was correct, and an updated letter

would be issued. Later that evening, Ms. Talbot received the updated denial letter which

corrected the facts of when Ms. Talbot requested the exemption, when she made the second

request, but continuing the decision to deny the exemption dated February 14, 2022.

43. Ms. Talbot began working at MedStar on February 21, 2022. Shortly thereafter,

Ms. Talbot was informed that MedStar had not yet received a signed Supervised Letter of

Practice that would allow Ms. Talbot to work as a Graduate Nurse until proof of passing the

NCLEX was provided. Ms. Talbot was informed that the DC Board of Nursing had not received

any information regarding Ms. Talbot religious exemption waiver and the status was showing

pending in the system. Ms. Talbot was also informed that until the Supervised Letter of Practice

was received, Ms. Talbot could not be classified as a Graduate Nurse and until such time as the

Supervised Letter of Practice was provided, Ms. Talbot will be a Student Nurse Extern. The

designation of Student Nurse Extern means that Ms. Talbot’s hourly wage is cut in half, she is

not eligible for benefits, and she is not eligible to participate in the Nursing Bridge program. She

has lost both her opportunity to take the NCLEX, and to work as a Graduate Nurse as a direct

and proximate result of DC Health’s inexplicable conduct in this matter.

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 11 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 12 of 23

44. On March 1, 2021, Ms. Talbot was notified by MedStar that her employment was

being deferred until she received religious exemption from DC Health and the Supervised Letter

of Practice from DC BON. This new development means that Ms. Talbot is being cut off from

participating in any of the programs and benefits of her chosen career because she is being asked

to go against her sincerely held religious beliefs, the teachings of Jesus Christ, and be injected

with a substance she is morally opposed to.

45. Ms. Talbot received a grant from MedStar Washington Medical Center while at

GWU which requires her to work as a DC licensed nurse for three years. This delay means that

the three-year time commitment will not begin until she is licensed by DC Health, or at least

provided the Supervised Letter of Practice which enables Ms. Talbot to work as a Graduate

Nurse. Her ability to perform and participate in several clinical practices is also being impeded

causing an unnecessary burden on Ms. Talbot.

46. DC Health was unable or unwilling to provide Ms. Talbot with any reasoning for

the determination that granting the religious exemption would create an undue burden on DC

Health. DC Health was unable or unwilling to provide Ms. Talbot with the process used to make

the decision of whether to grant the religious exemption. On February 25, 2022, through

undersigned counsel, Ms. Talbot requested reconsideration of the denial based on the

information that the denial was causing Ms. Talbot irreparable harm. DC Health was unable or

unwilling to reconsider the decision.

47. Simultaneously with this Complaint, Plaintiff is filing a request for a Temporary

Restraining Order, asking this Court to enjoin DC Health from denying Ms. Talbot the religious

exemption due to the immediate and irreparable harm Ms. Talbot suffers as a result of the

Defendants’ actions and conduct.

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 12 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 13 of 23

COUNT I
The Free Exercise of Religion under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

48. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are hereby incorporated as if set forth fully herein.

49. “The principle that government may not enact laws that suppress religious belief

or practice is well understood.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508

U.S. 520,523 (1993) (“Lukumi”).

50. Under that Clause, a government, including a municipal government, “has no

power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015).

51. Based on 22 DCMR §§ 230 and 231, which Defendants created, adopted, and

enforced under color of state law, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of her First Amendment right to

the free exercise of her sincerely held religious beliefs.

52. Defendants are violating Plaintiff’s right to the free exercise of her sincerely held

religious beliefs in contravention of the First Amendment by requiring Plaintiff to receive an

invasive medical treatment that substantially interferes with Plaintiff’s right to freely exercise her

religious beliefs.

53. 22 DCMR §§ 230 and 231, and Defendants’ conduct related thereto violates the

First Amendment by punishing licensees, and applicants, who exercise their sincere religious

convictions in connection with their intimate, personal medical decisions.

54. Plaintiff’s adherence to her sincerely held religious beliefs constitutes the free

exercise of her religion.

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 13 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 14 of 23

55. 22 DCMR §§ 230 and 231 and Defendants’ conduct related thereto is not a general

law or policy because they specifically target licensees and applicants who, like Plaintiff, object

to a COVID-19 vaccine based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

56. Defendants’ denial of Plaintiff’s exemption, and Defendants’ actions related

thereto, place an unconstitutional burden on Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to Freedom of

Religion.

COUNT II
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983 –VIOLATION OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AND VIOLATION FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AFFORDED
UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

57. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 56 as though fully set forth
herein.

58. Based on 22 DCMR §§ 230 and 231, which Defendants created, adopted, and

enforced under color of state law, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of her fundamental rights to

privacy, personal autonomy, and personal identity.

59. Defendants have further violated Plaintiff’s fundamental right to bodily integrity

to make her own informed medical choices with the assistance of her own healthcare providers.

60. In favoring and enforcing 22 DCMR §§ 230 and 231, and the policies related

thereto, Defendants have approved forcing medical treatment on Plaintiff, all in violation of

Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right to due process before rights to privacy, personal autonomy,

and personal identity are denied.

61. 22 DCMR §§ 230 and 231 and Defendants’ conduct related thereto deprives

Plaintiff of her personal decisions central to one’s individual dignity and autonomy, including

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 14 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 15 of 23

intimate decisions that define personal identity and beliefs by delegitimatizing Plaintiff’s

sincerely held religious beliefs as not worthy of protection.

62. 22 DCMR §§ 230 and 231 and Defendants’ conduct related thereto punish

Plaintiff for allegedly violating Defendants’ policies, for the mere reason that Plaintiff has

exercised her religious and medical right to make her own medical choices.

63. Defendants’ policies and practices harm Plaintiff by violating Plaintiff’s

Constitutional rights through the denial of licensure for failure to comply with 22 DCMR §§

230 and 231 and Defendants’ requirements related thereto.

64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful violation of Plaintiff’s

Constitutional rights, Plaintiff has suffered and will suffer immediate, irreparable harm, including

the loss of her fundamental Constitutional rights to privacy, personal autonomy, and personal

identity, thereby entitling her to declaratory and injunctive relief.

65. 22 DCMR §§ 230 and 231 do not meet the requirement of being neutral and

generally applicable. See Fulton v. City of Phila., 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1877 (2021) (citing Church

of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah , 508 U.S. 520, 531–532, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d

472 (1993)).

66. A law is not generally applicable if it "invite[s]" the government to consider the

particular reasons for a person's conduct by providing " ‘a mechanism for individualized

exemptions.’ " Smith , 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (quoting Bowen v. Roy , 476 U.S. 693,

708, 106 S.Ct. 2147, 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (opinion of BURGER, C. J., joined by POWELL

AND REHNQUIST, JJ.)).

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 15 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 16 of 23

67. A municipal government regulation that puts in “place a system of individual

exemptions” may not refuse a religious exemption without compelling reason. Fulton v. City of

Phila., 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1877 (2021) (Cleaned up).

68. The creation of a formal mechanism for granting exemptions renders a policy

not generally applicable, regardless of whether any exemptions have been given, because it

"invite[s]" the government to decide which reasons for not complying with the policy are

worthy of solicitude.”. Id.

69. A government policy can survive strict scrutiny only if it advances "interests of

the highest order" and is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests. Lukumi , 508 U.S. at 546,

113 S.Ct. 2217 (internal quotation marks omitted).

70. Rather than rely on "broadly formulated interests," courts must "scrutinize[ ] the

asserted harm of granting specific exemptions to particular religious claimants." O Centro , 546

U.S. at 431, 126 S.Ct. 1211.

71. The question, then, is not whether the Government has a compelling interest in

enforcing its non-discrimination policies generally, but whether it has such an interest in

denying an exemption to Plaintiff.

72. By providing for non-religious medical exemptions, 22 DCMR §§ 230 and 231

creates a mechanism for individualized exemptions. DC Health retains the discretion to grant

the exemptions in whole or in part. Therefore Defendants’ must prove that their decision to

deny Plaintiff’s request will survive strict scrutiny.

73. Defendants cannot prove that the decision to deny Plaintiff’s request served a

higher order as the only reason given to Plaintiff was that the denial would cause undue

hardship.

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 16 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 17 of 23

74. Plaintiff does not fail to appreciate the burdens COVID-19 has placed on the DC

Health, the District of Colombia, and the nation. But having announced a system under which

licensees and applicants can seek individualized exemptions, the Defendants are required to

explain why they chose not to grant an exemption from Plaintiff. They did not fairly do so here,

nor will they be able to do so, as granting the exemption will afford Ms. Talbot the opportunity

to provide vital, clinical, medical care.

COUNT III
VIOLATIONS OF THE
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT
42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1

75. Paragraphs 1 through 74 are hereby incorporated as if set forth fully herein.

76. RFRA states that “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise

of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the government

“demonstrates that application of the burden to the person – (1) is in furtherance of a compelling

governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling

governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1; Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S.

682, 705 (2014).

77. RFRA’s “compelling interest test” is a form of strict scrutiny that “requires the

Government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of

the challenged law ‘to the person’ – the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is

being substantially burdened.” Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546

U.S. 418, 430-31 (2006).

78. The District of Columbia, as an enclave of the federal government, is a “covered

entity” under RFRA. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(2).

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 17 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 18 of 23

79. In order to make the required “demonstrat[ion]” to justify a burden of religion,

Defendants must satisfy both the evidentiary and persuasive burden. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-2(3).

80. RFRA broadly defines the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of

religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C. §

2000bb–2(4) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc–5). In Hobby Lobby, the United States Supreme Court

stated that the exercise of religion involves “not only belief and profession but the performance

of (or abstention from) physical acts that are engaged in for [a] religious reason.” 573 U.S. at 710

(citing Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990)).

81. Making decisions about how her body is treated and what is injected into her body

is an essential component of Plaintiff’s exercise of her religion.

82. A compelling interest includes “only those interests of the highest order.”

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972). And the least-restrictive-means standard is

“exceptionally demanding.” Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 728. To pass the least-restrictive-means

test, the government must show “that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without

imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion” by the religious objector. Id.

83. By denying an exemption to the vaccine requirement, Defendants are in violation

of RFRA by burdening Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs without even an attempt to

meet the least restrictive means test.

84. Defendants cannot meet the least-restrictive-means test.

REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

85. In a procedural injury case, the plaintiff must establish that "(1) the government

violated its procedural rights designed to protect a threatened, concrete interest, and (2) the

violation resulted in injury to that concrete, particularized interest." New Hampshire v. Holder,

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 18 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 19 of 23

293 F.R.D. 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2013) (three-judge court) (citing Ctr. for Law & Educ. v. Dep't of Educ.,

396 F.3d 1152, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). "[T]he procedural standing doctrine 'does not—and

cannot—eliminate any of the "irreducible" elements of standing[.]'" Id. (quoting Fla. Audubon

Soc'y, 94 F.3d at 664). It does, however, "relax[] the immediacy and redressability

requirements." Id.; see also Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 517-18 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 572

n.7) (internal citation omitted). As a result, in a procedural injury case, the "litigant has standing

if there is some possibility that the requested relief will prompt the injury-causing party to

reconsider the decision that allegedly harmed the litigant." Id.; see also Sugar Cane Growers

Coop. of Fla. v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 89, 94-95 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (requiring that plaintiffs alleging

procedural injuries "show that the procedural step was connected to the substantive result"). The

injury-in-fact and causation requirements, in contrast, are not relaxed and apply just as they

would in any other case. Ctr. for Law & Educ. v. Dep't of Educ., 396 F.3d 1152, 1157 (D.C. Cir.

2005).

PRAYER FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court enter an order:

a. Declaring that Defendants have unlawfully burdened Plaintiff’s religious free

exercise rights, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et

seq.;

b. Declaring that Defendants have unlawfully burdened Plaintiff’s religious free

exercise rights, in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution;

c. Declaring that Defendants have denied Plaintiff equal protection of the laws,

in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 19 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 20 of 23

d. For an order from the Court determining and declaring that Defendants acted

unconstitutionally and outside their authority as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint;

e. For an order that Defendants are temporarily and preliminarily restrained and

enjoined from enforcing, attempting to enforce, threatening to enforce, or otherwise requiring

compliance with 22 DCMR §§ 230 and 231;

f. For an order that Defendants are temporarily and preliminarily restrained and

enjoined from enforcing, attempting to enforce, threatening to enforce, or otherwise requiring

that Plaintiff receive a vaccine;

g. For an order that Defendants shall immediately issue an Authorization to Test as

well as any further documentation, information, or guidance to allow the Board of Nursing to

issue a Supervised Letter of Practice to Plaintiff;

h. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages;

i. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages;

j. Awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses; and

k. Granting Plaintiff all such other and further relief as the Court deems just

and proper.

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 20 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 21 of 23

Respectfully submitted on this March 3, 2022, by

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

KATHERINE TALBOT

Richard Toikka /s/

Richard Toikka, Esq.

D.C. Bar No. 416721
Wilt & Kraft, PLLC
1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
202-508-3648 (office)
240-888-8110 (cell)

Theresa Kraft /s/

Theresa Kraft, Esq.

D.C. Bar No. 1741565
Pro Hac Vice
Wilt & Kraft, PLLC
1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
202-508-3648 (office)
603-568-2464 (cell)

COMPLAINT
Talbot v. District of Columbia, et.al
Page 21 of 23
 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 22 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KATHERINE TALBOT,

Plaintiff Case No. __________________

v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MAYOR MURIEL BOWSER, in her

individual capacity

DC HEALTH

DR. LAQUANDRA NESBITT, DIRECTOR

OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, in her
individual capacity

JOHN DOES 1-20

Defendants

VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT

I, Katherine Talbot, declare as follows:

1. I am the Plaintiff for the Complaint herein.

2. I have personal knowledge of the activities and allegations set out in the foregoing

Complaint, and if called upon to testify I would competently testify as to the matters stated

herein.

VERIFICATION OF KATHERINE TALBOT

 Case 1:22-cv-00595 Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 23 of 23

3. I verify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that

the factual statements in this Complaint are true and correct.

Executed on March ____, 2022

_____________________
Katherine Talbot

VERIFICATION OF KATHERINE TALBOT