Michael S. Freeman, II sued Raytheon Technologies Corporation, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the secretaries of DOD and HHS in their official capacities in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, raising various claims related to his termination from employment. The district court dismissed Freeman’s Third Amended Complaint with prejudice, and Freeman appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Factual Overview
In 2021, Collins Aerospace, a subsidiary of Raytheon, hired Freeman as a schedule analyst manager. Raytheon implemented a COVID-19 vaccination policy for its employees, which allowed exemptions but required unvaccinated employees to work primarily from home and adhere to additional safety measures. Freeman, who has a genetic blood disorder, received an exemption but refused to comply with the policy, believing it was ineffectual and discriminatory. In January 2022, Collins Aerospace fired Freeman for his refusal to comply. Freeman filed a complaint with the EEOC but withdrew it before the investigation was completed.
Legal Analysis
Employment Discrimination Claims Against Raytheon: The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Freeman’s employment discrimination claims against Raytheon, finding that Freeman failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that Raytheon was his employer or otherwise responsible for the actions of Collins Aerospace under either the single-employer or joint-employer theory of liability.
Claims Against the Federal Government: The court held that sovereign immunity barred Freeman’s employment discrimination claims against DOD because the federal government did not employ Freeman, even if Raytheon and Collins Aerospace could be considered a single employer.
Constitutional Claims: The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Freeman’s First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment claims, concluding that Freeman had not alleged facts to infer that Collins Aerospace was a government actor, as required for constitutional claims.
Claims Under the Ninth Amendment, Nuremberg Code, and Federal Regulations: The court found that Freeman failed to cite any authority supporting his novel theory of liability under the Ninth Amendment, Nuremberg Code, and federal regulations governing informed consent. The court affirmed the dismissal of these claims, as the cited provisions do not create private rights of action.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing all of Freeman’s claims.
Schrag on Law 