UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

JAMES M. ABERNATHY, HEATHER

)
HUTTON, and KERRIE INGLE, on their own
)
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
)
situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) No.:
)
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, ) JURY DEMANDED
INC. )
)
Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

Come now James M. (“Matt”) Abernathy, Heather (Click) Hutton, and Kerrie Ingle, on their

own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through counsel, and sue

Defendant BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc., as follows:

SUMMARY OF THE CASE

1. This is a class action lawsuit brought against BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee,

Inc. (“Defendant”) to remedy the illegal discrimination to which its employees who requested

religious accommodations from Defendant’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate have had to endure.

2. Defendant decided that unvaccinated employees—even those who Defendant

admits have sincerely held religious objections to the vaccine—were to be terminated from their

employment despite their sincerely held religious beliefs and the reasonableness of their

accommodation requests.

3. Defendant’s discriminatory actions left Plaintiffs and those similarly situated with

the formidable task of choosing between their faith and their jobs. As to those who chose their

1
Case 3:23-cv-00322-CLC-JEM Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1
faith, Defendant terminated their employment. In so doing, Defendant violated Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Plaintiffs based on their religious beliefs and

failing to provide reasonable accommodations to Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

4. Plaintiff Matt Abernathy is an adult citizen and resident of Nashville, Davidson

County, Tennessee.

5. Plaintiff Heather Click is an adult citizen and resident of Bristol, Sullivan County,

Tennessee.

6. Plaintiff Kerrie Ingle is an adult citizen and resident of Soddy Daisy, Hamilton

County, Tennessee.

7. Defendant BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc. is a Tennessee not-for-profit

corporation with its principal office located at 1 Cameron Hill Circle, Chattanooga, Tennessee

37402.

8. Defendant is an insurance company offering, inter alia, individual and family

health insurance plans, Medicare and Medicaid plans, dental and vision plans, and employer and

group plans.

9. This case arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C

§ 2000e.

10. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. § 1331

(federal question).

11. Venue is proper pursuant to, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

12. Plaintiffs timely filed with the EEOC charges of religious discrimination reflecting

their intent to proceed as a class, received a Notice of Rights on August 21, 2023 (Abernathy),

2
Case 3:23-cv-00322-CLC-JEM Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 2
August 14 2023 (Hutton), and August 18, 2023 (Ingle), and timely file this suit within the

prescribed period.

FACTUAL BASIS

COVID-19 and Defendant’s Response.

13. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020, Defendant began

implementing various mitigation procedures for its employees, including allowing and/or

requiring many employees to work from home. Other safeguards it established included

mandated mask wearing, social distancing, and frequent COVID-19 testing. Necessarily,

Defendant created and implemented the infrastructure to support and fulfil such measures,

including the software foundation required for employees to work from home and the personnel

and technology infrastructure required to frequently test employees for COVID-19 and/or

antibodies, and to enforce a company-wide on-site mask mandate.

14. Within the United States, three vaccines have been created to combat COVID-19.

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) for

the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine on December 1, 2020, and another for the Moderna vaccine on

December 18, 2020. In February 2021, the FDA issued an EUA for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

Defendant’s Vaccine Mandate and Plaintiffs’ Requests for Accommodation

15. On August 11, 2021, Defendant identified between 800 and 900 positions which

were to be subject to a newly implemented mandate for receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

Employees in those identified positions were given six (6) weeks, as a term and condition of

employment, to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Absent an exemption for medical/disability or

religious reasons, any employee who refused the vaccine was to be terminated.

3
Case 3:23-cv-00322-CLC-JEM Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 3
 16. Defendant announced it would consider requests for medical and/or religious

exemptions on a case-by-case basis and at its discretion.

17. Each named Plaintiff as well as each member of the putative class submitted a

request for a religious accommodation through Defendant’s designated COVID-19 vaccination

exemption process.

18. In each of their respective accommodation requests, Plaintiffs explained their

belief that the COVID-19 vaccines—as well as other vaccines—were developed (either directly

or through testing) using fetal cell lines derived from aborted fetal tissue and that it would be

sinful to interject such products into their bodies. They believe a Christian’s body being

surrendered to God is a form of spiritual worship. (See, e.g., Romans 12:1). Plaintiff Heather

Click additionally believes that the vaccine causes the body to create proteins God did not intend

the body to create, which is in itself a form of disobedience to God.

19. Each Plaintiff requested an accommodation to include, inter alia, the ability to

work from home (or continue working from home in some instances), or alternatively, that he

or she would agree to abide by increased safety protocols such as mask wearing and/or face

shields, social distancing, frequent COVID-19 testing, and COVID-19 antibody testing.

20. Plaintiffs spoke to and became aware of other employees who share similar

deeply held religious beliefs and who, like them, requested accommodations that would

substantially reduce any and all risk of transmitting COVID-19 to their coworkers or others.

21. Based on the information Defendant requested that Plaintiffs provide, Defendant

concluded that each named Plaintiff – and upon information and belief, their coworkers who

requested religious exemptions – were indeed sincere in their deeply held religious beliefs

regarding the vaccine.

4
Case 3:23-cv-00322-CLC-JEM Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 4
 22. However, as to each and every employee who requested accommodation on

religious grounds, Defendant denied the accommodation.

23. Upon information and belief, as it pertains to employees requesting an exemption

to Defendant’s vaccine policy because of their sincerely held religious beliefs, Defendant rejected

each and every employee’s request. This is true despite Defendant’s acknowledgment of the

sincerity of each person’s deeply held belief. Indeed, Defendant instituted a pattern and practice

of denying religious accommodations to the entire class of those who requested

accommodations based on their sincerely held religious beliefs, irrespective of such person’s

position, accommodations requested, religion practiced, or any other differentiating factor.

24. While Defendant feigned an attempt to engage in the interactive process with

Plaintiffs, this effort was insincere, as Defendant never intended to grant any reasonable

accommodations, as evidenced by the fact that Defendant denied all religious exemption

requests across the board as a matter of course and practice.

25. This denial came despite the reasonableness of the accommodation requests and

despite the fact that employees had worked under these conditions (e.g., remotely, heightened

safety protocols, etc.) for several months prior to and after the vaccines were developed.

26. Defendant’s past conduct and implementation of heightened safety protocols,

remote work, and other COVID-19 safety measures show that Plaintiffs could have been

accommodated without any resulting substantial increase in costs in relation to the conduct of

Defendant’s business.

27. Yet, irrespective of the sincerity of their religious beliefs and the reasonableness

of their accommodation requests, Defendant fired Plaintiffs and their similarly situated

coworkers between October 5, 2021, and November 5, 2021, for their failure to receive a COVID-

19 vaccine.

5
Case 3:23-cv-00322-CLC-JEM Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 5
 CLASS ALLEGATIONS

28. Plaintiffs incorporate into this section the above averments.

29. Plaintiffs bring their claims as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 23(a) and (b).

30. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all employees who

requested that Defendant exempt them from Defendant’s vaccine mandate due their sincere (as

Defendant itself concluded) religious beliefs , and with respect to whom Defendant violated their

legal rights by denying such accommodations and terminating their employment pursuant to a

pattern or practice of discriminating against those employees who requested on the basis of their

religious beliefs to be exempted from Defendant’s vaccine mandate.

31. By issuing a uniform denial of all religious-based accommodation requests,

Defendant’s legal violations extend to the entire class.

32. Joinder of all members of the class would be impractical due to the numerosity of

the class. At this time, the exact class size is unknown to Plaintiffs; however, it is expected to

exceed fifty (50) employees.

33. Common questions of law and fact apply to all members of the class. Such

questions include, inter alia:

a. Did Defendant follow a de facto policy of rejecting religious exemption

requests?

b. Did Defendant follow a discriminatory policy of treating religious exemptions

less favorably than other classes of people requesting exemption on different

grounds?

c. Did Defendant comply with Title VII’s requirement that it consider each

member’s accommodation request on a case-by-case basis?

6
Case 3:23-cv-00322-CLC-JEM Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 6
 d. Did Defendant comply with Title VII’s requirement that it provide reasonable

accommodations to those employees with sincerely held religious beliefs?

e. Would providing an exemption to the vaccine mandate to those whose

sincerely held religious beliefs are antithetical to the vaccine have resulted in

substantial increase in costs in relation to the conduct of Defendant’s

business?

34. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of, if not identical to, the claims of the class because

they, like the class members, (1) requested accommodations based on their sincerely held

religious beliefs, (2) Defendant determined their beliefs to be sincerely held, (3) Defendant

denied those requests as a matter of practice and policy, and (4) Defendant refused to consider

on a case-by-case basis whether such request could be accommodated.

35. For those reasons, Plaintiffs will fairly and effectively protect the interest of the

entire class.

36. The questions of law and fact which are common to the members of the class

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is the most

suitable method to efficiently adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims. Joinder of all members of the class is

impracticable and judicially inefficient.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Religious Discrimination

37. Plaintiffs incorporate the paragraphs above by reference.

38. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), makes it unlawful

for an employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee on the basis of

religion.

7
Case 3:23-cv-00322-CLC-JEM Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 7
 39. Title VII also imposes a duty upon employers to reasonably accommodate the

sincerely held religious beliefs of their employees. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).

40. Here, Plaintiffs held sincere religious beliefs which caused their respective

objections to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Defendant has conceded this fact.

41. Plaintiffs were otherwise qualified for their respective positions, as evidenced by

their years of employment within their roles.

42. Defendant was aware of Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs and their

corresponding objection to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate via Plaintiffs’ submissions of religious

accommodation requests.

43. Defendant informed Plaintiffs that it would not accommodate their religious

objections and instead terminated Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees.

44. This despite that an accommodation would not have resulted in a substantial

increase in costs in relation to the conduct of Defendant’s business.

45. Defendant’s action was to issue a blanket, across-the-board, unappealable

rejection of each religious-based exemption request.

46. Plaintiffs were subject to adverse employment actions; Defendant terminated

their employments. Only if they surrendered their religious beliefs would Defendant have

changed course on firing them.

47. In so doing, Defendant treated Plaintiffs and the putative class members worse

than it treated those within other protected classes, specifically those who requested and were

granted disability-based exemptions. Likewise, Defendant treated Plaintiffs and those similarly

situated worse than those outside of the protected class.

8
Case 3:23-cv-00322-CLC-JEM Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 8
 48. By failing to accommodate Plaintiffs’ sincere religious beliefs and then firing

Plaintiffs, Defendant willfully discriminated against Plaintiffs because of their religious beliefs,

which is a blatant violation of Title VII.

DAMAGES

49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful and willfully

discriminatory behavior, Plaintiffs and the similarly-situated class members have and will

continue to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress, lost wages and benefits, loss

of earning capacity, loss of future income, and other benefits and privileges of employment.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Matt Abernathy, Heather (Click) Hutton, and Kerrie Ingle, on

their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully pray for the following

relief:

50. That the Court certify this action as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 23(a) and (b).

51. A judgment that Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by

illegally discriminating against Plaintiffs and those similarly situated based on their religion, and

that such violation was willful and/or reckless;

52. A jury be empaneled to serve as the trier of fact;

53. An award of all damages the law affords Plaintiffs and those similarly situated,

including back pay, reinstatement or front pay, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,

punitive damages, and compensatory damages;

54. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

9
Case 3:23-cv-00322-CLC-JEM Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 9
 55. An award of all such other and further legal and equitable relief to which Plaintiffs

and those similarly situated may be entitled under the facts of this case.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

s/ Clint J. Coleman
JESSE D. NELSON (BPR # 025602)
CLINT J. COLEMAN (BPR # 038413)
NELSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
10263 Kingston Pike
Knoxville, TN 37922
(865) 383-1053
jesse@nlgattorneys.com
clint@NLGattorneys.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and putative class of

similarly situated employees

10
Case 3:23-cv-00322-CLC-JEM Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 10
JS 44 (Rev. #%"$$) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided
by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating
the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

JAMES M. ABERNATHY, HEATHER HUTTON, and KERRIE INGLE, on BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC.
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Davidson County, TN County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Hamilton County, TN
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Jesse D. Nelson and Clint Coleman, Nelson Law Group, PLLC
10263 Kingston Pike
Knoxville, TN 37922; (865) 383-1053
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff)
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
" 1 U.S. Government " 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State " 1 " 1 Incorporated or Principal Place " 4 " 4
of Business In This State

" 2 U.S. Government " 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State " 2 " 2 Incorporated and Principal Place " 5 " 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a " 3 " 3 Foreign Nation " 6 " 6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS
" 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY
" 120 Marine " 310 Airplane
" 130 Miller Act " 315 Airplane Product
" 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability
" 150 Recovery of Overpayment " 320 Assault, Libel &
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander
" 151 Medicare Act " 330 Federal Employers’
" 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability
Student Loans " 340 Marine
(Excl. Veterans) " 345 Marine Product
" 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability
of Veteran’s Benefits " 350 Motor Vehicle
" 160 Stockholders’ Suits " 355 Motor Vehicle
" 190 Other Contract Product Liability
" 195 Contract Product Liability " 360 Other Personal
" 196 Franchise Injury
" 362 Personal Injury -
Med. Malpractice
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS
" 210 Land Condemnation " 440 Other Civil Rights
" 220 Foreclosure " 441 Voting
" 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment " 442 Employment
" 240 Torts to Land " 443 Housing/
" 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations
" 290 All Other Real Property " 445 Amer. w/Disabilities -
Employment
" 446 Amer. w/Disabilities -
Other
" 448 Education
Foreign Country
FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
PERSONAL INJURY " 625 Drug Related Seizure " 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 " 375 False Claims Act
" 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 " 423 Withdrawal " 400 State Reapportionment
Product Liability " 690 Other 28 USC 157 " 410 Antitrust
" 367 Health Care/ " 430 Banks and Banking
Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS " 450 Commerce
Personal Injury " 820 Copyrights " 460 Deportation
Product Liability " 830 Patent " 470 Racketeer Influenced and
" 368 Asbestos Personal " 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
Injury Product " 480 Consumer Credit
Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY " 490 Cable/Sat TV
PERSONAL PROPERTY " 710 Fair Labor Standards " 861 HIA (1395ff) " 850 Securities/Commodities/
" 370 Other Fraud Act " 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange
" 371 Truth in Lending " 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations " 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) " 890 Other Statutory Actions
" 380 Other Personal " 740 Railway Labor Act " 864 SSID Title XVI " 891 Agricultural Acts
Property Damage " 751 Family and Medical " 865 RSI (405(g)) " 893 Environmental Matters
" 385 Property Damage Leave Act " 895 Freedom of Information
Product Liability " 790 Other Labor Litigation Act
" 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. " 896 Arbitration
PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS " 899 Administrative Procedure
" 510 Motions to Vacate " 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of
Sentence or Defendant) Agency Decision
Habeas Corpus: " 871 IRS—Third Party " 950 Constitutionality of
" 530 General 26 USC 7609 State Statutes
" 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION
" 540 Mandamus & Other " 462 Naturalization Application
" 550 Civil Rights " 463 Habeas Corpus -
" 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee
" 560 Civil Detainee - (Prisoner Petition)
Conditions of " 465 Other Immigration
Confinement Actions

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

Transferred from
" 1 Original " 2 Removed from " 3 Remanded from " 4 Reinstated or " 5 another district " 6 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened (specify) Litigation
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. 2000e-2
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Religious Discrimination
VII. REQUESTED IN " CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: " Yes " No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

09/07/2023 s/Clint J. Coleman
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Case 3:23-cv-00322-CLC-JEM Document 1-1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 11
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. #%"$$)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required
by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the
use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil
complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only
the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving
both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation
cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section “(see attachment)”.
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in one
of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the
Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box
1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of
the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section
for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of
suit, select the most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition
for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict
litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this
box is checked, do not check (5) above.
Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes
unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553
Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers
and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Case 3:23-cv-00322-CLC-JEM Document 1-1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 12

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Eastern District
__________ DistrictofofTennessee
__________

JAMES M. ABERNATHY, HEATHER HUTTON, and )

KERRIE INGLE, et al
)
Plaintiff
)
v. ) Civil Action No.
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC.
)
)
Defendant
)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

ATTN: Anne Hance, Registered Agent
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Bluecross Blueshield of Tennessee, Inc.
1 Cameron Hill Circle
Chattanooga, TN 37402

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
Jesse D. Nelson
Nelson Law Group, PLLC
10263 Kingston Pike
Knoxville, TN 37922
(865) 383-1053
jesse@NLGattorneys.com

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:23-cv-00322-CLC-JEM Document 1-2 Filed 09/07/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 13

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

" I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

" I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

" I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or

" I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

" Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 3:23-cv-00322-CLC-JEM Document 1-2 Filed 09/07/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 14