Lawsuit Frequently Asked Questions

Questions for Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A.

Download the PDF version and share it with others!

We wouldn’t bring the case if we didn’t think we could win. It is a very difficult case. The chances increase for those whose employer is a governmental entity, because they are subject to greater scrutiny, but it’s a difficult case for both and wildly politically charged. The goal will be to find a way to get federal court jurisdiction because the conservative liberal split on the 8th Circuit (the appellate court who reviews the district court decision) is 17-4 conservative so we have over a 90% chance of getting a conservative panel which increases your chances of success.

There is no “average” cost of a case like this. It is a case of first impression in the court we are going to bring it. That being said, this will not be a case that goes to trial (which is far more expensive than a case decided by summary judgment), because this is strictly a legal issue that has an extremely compressed timeframe. The cost will definitely exceed $50,000, and if we have to do an emergency appeal and injunction by the 8th Circuit (which is likely), it will exceed $100,000. That is why we need at least 50 people to participate because I don’t want any individual person’s responsibility to exceed $2,000 in total. Everyone’s individual responsibility will only include their pro-rata share of the total participants (meaning if we have 50 people, no one’s responsibility will exceed 1/50th of the total bill regardless if someone stiffs us)

Possibly, a California non-profit has already referred us potential clients, but has not offered us funding. There are wealthy conservatives whom we work with who may take an interest in your case once it is filed.

1. Contact information- address, cell, email. 2. Employer and job description along with a copy of the communication from their employer (or hospital where you have privileges) which requires this as a requirement of continued employment, or continued hospital privileges. 3. Signed retainer 4. Check for $1000

Immediate appeal and request for an injunction pending appeal from the 8th Circuit.

a. No. b. After termination, can we sue for money? c. Yes. For wrongful termination. I. How would that work? II. That would be a different animal and a much larger lawsuit, but the damages would be very significant in size.

a. A complaint needs to be filed by month end, with expedited briefing of our motion for a temporary restraining order, for a decision to be rendered by October 1. b. We are going to ask that the decision be made at least 5 days in advance of October 1, so that we can get a request for an emergency injunction pending appeal to the 8th Circuit.

a. As far as I know, this is the only case in Minnesota. b. Allina Health is also mandating the flu shot. Can that be included in the case? • It can, but I would advise against it. The reasons against the Covid shot, (e.g. non properly tested, fatal side effects, etc., don’t carry as much weight as the flu shot) • The invasive arguments still hold weight against the mandating of the flu shot. If we win the Covid argument, we would basically win the flu shot argument by default.

a. Yes because it’s still not really vetted. b. What about the flu shot? See above.

a. Yes, and that’s the plan, we are considering combining you with the teachers who are contacting us. b. Which companies will be affected? • All the ones who are defendants. c. Can there be different outcomes for different companies? • Possibly but not likely, but definitely between public and private employers there could be a distinction drawn by the court. d. At what point is it split out? • Each company would receive a separate decision.

a. If they are defendants.

a. Not if we can find Plaintiffs in other states. b. Does it include federal employees? If we sue facilities run by the federal government like the VA. • We would need VA plaintiffs. c. What other states are you licensed to practice? • We are licensed in federal court in Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, District of Colombia, Arizona, and a few others. We are licensed in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois state courts.

No.

100%

a. Obviously, that the firm will take the case, however, that benefits even those who do not sign the retainer agreement. b. Is there a specific benefit to those who sign the retainer agreement? • I don’t represent anyone who doesn’t sign the retainer. We could have a situation where the employers who were smart offered an exemption to our clients to keep it from their greater employees, and you’d be hard pressed not to take that offer. Then anyone not on our list gets left in the cold. Also, the greater number of people we have the stronger the suit gets and the effects on the healthcare industry as a whole would have to be taken into account, if the number got big enough.

a. If they were going to fold and take the vaccine. b. If they silently wanted to fund the case, but they would assume the risk of a settlement that would exclude them.

Some employees could be so critical that the employer buckles because their skills are too valuable. Or some hospitals the amount of plaintiffs might cripple them to the point that they couldn’t operate. That would be highly unlikely. I have to put that language in a retainer agreement for multiple employees. It doesn’t really have a ton of application here that I can

a. 100% you always can quit. Basically if we lose the preliminary injunction request at the 8th Circuit it’s over anyway, unless the Supreme Court of the United States takes it (which has happened twice for us). b. Or are we committed to take this farther? • Never. c. What are our options for backing out after the retainer is signed? • You can always quit. We aren’t asking for money. They would always dismiss you.

I’m not taking the case unless we have enough plaintiffs or I have assurance that I’m going to get paid. If people can’t afford a few thousand dollars, they shouldn’t be in this game and should take the vaccine or find another job. I have trouble envisioning a situation where anyone’s liability could exceed $4,000 and it’s far more likely that it would be half that. There just isn’t enough time in the day and this isn’t our only case that the firm is working on.

That’s what our lawsuit is going to determine.

Tell them it’s protected information under HIPPA. That will stall them for a bit.

I cannot do any legal work on this until I’m retained.

a. Just the termination letter and any associated documents. b. Do I have to sign something from the company? • No, but they will probably offer you severance in exchange for a release. c. Should I sign anything or refuse? • I would refuse. d. What if they withhold my PTO payout or last paycheck for not signing? • They would never do that. It is illegal and would be suicide.

To sue. That’s it.

a. No need. They are legally insignificant. This is not a factual case, it’s a legal one. b. Should we notify them we are recording? • Don’t do it.

We have a private, hidden, by invite only group on Facebook. Keep the posts to soliciting other members. Keep the content bland. They are going to try to make you seem nuts.

Studies on negative side effects, studies on the rate of breakthrough on vaccinated people to show that the distinction between vaccinated and unvaccinated is silly in terms of ability to communicate to others. Anyone can communicate delta, even vaccinated people like me.

a. Our goal is to go to federal court. Our chances are better there. Even if we did go to state court, she would have to recuse herself from any decision. That’s standard policy. It happens all the time. You have judges who’s spouses are partners in big law firms and they have to recuse themselves from all of their cases. b. I think the political leanings of the majority of the justices are a bigger concern than their desire to not anger a coworker. Her republican colleagues vote against her all the time

This is not a substitute for a religious exemption. We would recommend filing those too if they apply to you. This will be to invalidate the mandate if your exemption is denied. We may include a claim that would invalidate an employer’s ability to deny the exemption too.

Truth. Power is in numbers. However, there are MANY of us and in that our voices will be heard. Feeling strongly about the historical record of MKE and their ability as the SOLE FIRM in MPLS dedicated to government and corporate litigation. WE have the BEST group!

This suit would demonstrate that vaccine mandates are unlawful in Minnesota, it would be difficult for them to require something that is unlawful

They can certainly try, but they risk big exposure on an unpaid wages lawsuit if they do it to a lot of people. They will spend more defending these suits than they earn by not paying them. As to unemployment, that would have to be contested in the courts also, but I have a hard time that a unilateral altering of an employment contract could be legitimate grounds for willful misconduct… I think it is a bluff, but it may have to be tested in the Courts.

We are over 50, so that means we are moving forward. That is not a limit, that was a requirement. We want as many plaintiffs as we can get to strengthen our position

We are doing our best to match up the retainers with the list. A list of who has paid will be sent out soon

There is no longer a deadline, but people are going to want to join before we file. If a decision is made without them, they could be out of luck. This is not a class action. The decision will only directly affect the plaintiffs. It will have ancillary benefits for others, but only direct benefits for the members of the suit

If we do not get an injunction prior to October, they can terminate you. We are hoping that our pleadings are persuasive enough that they will be concerned about wrongful termination suits and will hold off until it is resolved

What are you waiting for? Join the cause today.

Sign up for our newsletter and rally information

Already joined? Share this with friends, family and colleagues to get the word out!