Milestone 1–  Suing Employers for Terminating Employees for Vaccination Refusal (completed) - $500,000

 

Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson (MKE) has achieved significant victories in its legal challenges against employers’ COVID-19 vaccination mandate.

​

• Appellate Court Victories: The most notable success came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the Eighth Circuit. In May 2024, the Eighth Circuit reversed a lower court's decision that had dismissed the claims of several employees who were fired for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine or testing.

​

• Key Legal Rulings: The Eighth Circuit's decision was a major win on three fronts:

  1. Religious Beliefs: The court ruled that the plaintiffs had plausibly pleaded that

     their religious beliefs conflicted with the employers’ COVID-19 policies. This was a critical step, as the lower court had dismissed their claims, arguing that their beliefs were not adequately connected to their refusal of the vaccine. The appellate court emphasized that religious beliefs do not have to be uniform or "comprehensible to others" to be protected under federal law.

  2. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: The court also reversed the lower court's finding that some plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before filing their lawsuits.

  3. Minnesota Human Rights Act: The appellate court also made a favorable ruling on the interpretation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which provides another legal avenue for the plaintiffs.

​

• Paving the Way for More Lawsuits: The victory in the Eighth Circuit did not award damages, but it did remand the case back to the district court for further proceedings. This decision has opened the door for other employees to pursue their claims for monetary damages.

​

• National Impact: MKE's success has had a nationwide impact, as the Seven Circuit’s and the Eighth Circuit's decisions addressed legal issues that are still unresolved in other federal and state courts nationwide. The EEOC even participated in the Eighth Circuit appeal, supporting the employees' religious liberty arguments.

 

​​

Monetary hurdle: $500,000 - Completed

​

​

​

​

Milestone 2- Initial Assessment and Legal Strategy for Sue, Settle, Legislate Strategy

A "sue, settle, legislate" strategy is a sophisticated, multi-pronged approach that uses litigation not just to win a case, but to force a broader policy change. It’s a powerful tactic often used by interest groups to achieve goals that might be difficult to pass through the traditional legislative process.

Here's how this strategy would be applied to the issues of vaccine injury and vaccination mandates, based on the steps you've outlined.

The "Sue, Settle, Legislate" Strategy

The core idea is to file a lawsuit (sue), negotiate a favorable settlement that changes policy (settle), and then use that legal win to push for a new, permanent law (legislate). This approach is particularly effective against government agencies, as a settlement can legally bind them to new policies or timelines.

Applying the Strategy to Vaccine Issues

(1) Determine the Nationwide Legal Objective

​

• Sue: The initial phase is to file multiple lawsuits. Instead of focusing on a single victory,

the goal is to create widespread legal pressure. This would involve two parallel tracks:

• Vaccine Injury Lawsuits: File a large number of claims through the CICP for alleged EUA vaccine injuries. The objective here is not necessarily to win every claim (which is notoriously difficult with the CICP), but to overwhelm the administrative system.

2. Mandate Lawsuits: File multiple lawsuits challenging vaccine mandates on constitutional and statutory grounds (religious freedom, bodily autonomy, etc.) in various jurisdictions. The goal is to get favorable rulings in at least a few key courts.

​

(2)Understand the "EUA" Factor as a Lever

​

• Settle: The "EUA" factor is the key leverage point. The government, through the CICP, has maintained a restrictive and often criticized compensation process for EUA vaccine injuries. The strategy would be to use the volume of lawsuits and public pressure to argue that the CICP is not a functional system.

 

• The Settlement Goal: The goal is not just to get compensation for a few individuals but to negotiate a settlement that forces the government to reform the CICP itself. This could involve demanding more transparent processes, a lower burden of proof for claimants, or a faster timeline for decisions. A settlement could also force the government to acknowledge the legal and ethical deficiencies of the CICP's current design.

​

(3) Consult a Specialist Legal Team

​

 

• Integration: This strategy requires a coordinated legal team. It's not enough to have separate lawyers for injury and mandate cases. The team must be unified, with experts in litigation (for the mandates) and administrative law (for the CICP), all working towards the same goal.

• Negotiation: The lawyers for the project would act as negotiators. Their job is to take the legal pressure from both the injury and mandate lawsuits and turn it into a bargaining chip with the government, pushing for a policy-changing settlement.

(4) Gather Documentation as Ammunition

​

• Data and Evidence: The documentation gathered from individual cases (medical records, exemption requests, etc.) is not just for one lawsuit. It becomes a massive dataset of evidence.

• Creating a Narrative: This data can be used to prove a systemic problem. For example, the legal team can show that a significant percentage of religious exemption requests were denied, or that the CICP has denied an overwhelming number of claims despite clear documentation of injuries. This evidence, combined with the lawsuits, makes the case for legislative change.

​

Monetary hurdle: $200,000
Date: December 31, 2025

 

 

Milestone 3: Preparing to Sue the Government

This stage involves a critical distinction between the two types of claims.

​

 For Vaccine Injury (via CICP):

​

• Request for Benefits: The project attorney on behalf of the client must file a

formal Request for Benefits with the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), which administers the CICP. This is not a lawsuit in a traditional court but an administrative claim.

• Legal Review: The project attorney will work with the client to ensure the client’s claim meets the CICP's strict criteria, including the timeline for filing and the nature of the injury. Be aware that the CICP has paid out very few claims for COVID-19 vaccine injuries compared to the number filed.

For Vaccination Mandates:

​

• Demand Letter/Notice of Claim: Before filing a lawsuit, the project attorney may

send a letter to the government agency or employer to outline client’s legal claims and demand they cease enforcement of the mandate or provide an accommodation.

• Drafting the Complaint: The attorney will draft a legal complaint that lays out the factual basis for the lawsuit and the legal arguments for why the mandate is unlawful. The complaint will be based on constitutional rights (e.g., religious freedom, due process) and statutory violations (e.g., ADA, Civil Rights Act).

Monetary hurdle: $200,000

Date: March 1, 2026

 

 

Milestone 4: Filing the Complaints

• For Vaccine Injury: The project attorney submits the official "Request for Benefits" form to the CICP.

• For Vaccination Mandates: The lawsuit is filed in the appropriate court. For federal mandates, this would typically be a U.S. District Court. For state or local mandates, it would be a state court. The complaint names the relevant government agency or official as the defendant.

Monetary hurdle: $200,000

Date: April 1, 2026

 

Milestone 5: Litigating the Cases

This is the core of the legal process.

​

For Vaccine Injury:

​

• Administrative Review: The CICP will review your claim. This process is not

public and does not involve a traditional court.

• Decision: An administrator at the Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) will make a final decision on your claim. There is no right to a formal
hearing or a judge. The decision is often final and difficult to appeal.

​

For Vaccination Mandates:

​

• Motions and Discovery: The government will file motions to dismiss the case. Your attorney will respond. Both sides will engage in "discovery," exchanging evidence and information. This can include depositions and the collection of documents.

• Hearings: The court may hold hearings on motions, such as a preliminary injunction to stop the mandate while the case is ongoing.

• Trial or Summary Judgment: The case may proceed to a trial where evidence and arguments are presented, or a judge may issue a summary judgment if there are no disputes of fact.

Monetary hurdle: $1,000,000

Date: June 30, 2027

 

 

Milestone 6: Appeals

• For Vaccine Injury: If your CICP claim is denied, you have very limited options. Unlike the VICP, there is no formal appeals process to a court. The decision by the HHS administrator is final.

• For Vaccination Mandates: If you lose at the trial court level, your attorney can appeal the decision to a higher court, such as a U.S. Court of Appeals. The appellate court reviews the lower court's legal reasoning. This can be a lengthy process, and the case may even be appealed to the Supreme Court, which makes a final, binding decision.

​

Monetary hurdle: $300,000

Date: May 31, 2028

 

 

Milestone 7: Legislate

​

Legislation is the final and most important step of the strategy.

​

• Legislate: Once a settlement is reached, or a series of favorable court rulings are secured, other organizations will use that legal momentum to push for a new law in Congress.

• The Bill: The goal is to draft a bill that formalizes the changes won in the settlement. This could include:

• Reforming the CICP: A law could be passed to merge the CICP into the more established and generous VICP, or to overhaul the CICP's process to make it fairer to claimants.

• Defining Protections: Legislation could be introduced to explicitly protect the right to bodily autonomy and religious freedom in the context of vaccination mandates, ensuring that reasonable accommodations are required and that mandates are not used to coerce individuals into taking a product.

• Public Pressure: The litigation and settlement process would be publicized to build public support. The media narrative would be framed as a victory for individual rights against government overreach, creating the political will necessary to pass the new legislation.

In summary, the sue, settle, legislate strategy is not about individual cases; it's about using those cases to create a legal and political crisis for the government. The goal is to force a settlement that fundamentally changes the administrative policy (the CICP) and then use that policy change as a non-negotiable starting point for new legislation, thereby achieving a permanent, systemic reform that could not have been won through litigation alone.

Monetary hurdle: TBD

Date: TBD​​

​