UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JAMEE WELLMAN, Case No. 3:22-cv-360

Plaintiff,

vs.

GREENE COUNTY PUBLIC District Judge Michael J. Newman HEALTH, Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry

Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER: (1) DEEMING THIS CASE SUFFICIENTLY DISTINCT FROM Harsman v. Cincinnati Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr., No. 1:21-cv-597,

, at *6–7 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2022); AND (2) FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF HAS SATISFIED THE SHOW CAUSE REQUIREMENT ______________________________________________________________________________

This civil case is before the Court following the parties’ responses to its Show Cause Order. Doc. Nos. 6, 7. In that Order, this Court ordered the parties to show how the case did not run afoul of Harsman v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, which deemed Plaintiff’s counsel’s law firm a vexatious litigant. No. 1:21-cv-597,

, at *6–7 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2022) (Black, J.). Specifically, the Court in Harsman prohibited any member of the plaintiff’s law firm from filing “any action that . . . arises from the same operative facts” without certification from attorneys outside the law firm who are in good standing and licensed to practice in the Southern District of Ohio.

The certification must attest that “the filing . . . of the suit is not the product of forum or judge-shopping and is not brought for any dilatory or otherwise improper purposes.”

In the present case, after considering the parties’ responses to the Show Cause Order, the Court finds that this case does not “arise[] from the same operative facts” as those at issue in Harsman. See

at *1–2 (noting that Harsman dealt with plaintiffs suing various Cincinnati- based hospitals to overturn their COVID-19 vaccine policies). Rather, this case involves employment discrimination claims. See Doc. No. 1. While, admittedly, this case also involves Defendant’s vaccination policies, unlike Harsman, it does not seek to overturn those policies.

Instead, it requires this Court to determine whether not granting Plaintiff an exemption from that policy violated federal and state law. See

To that end, the Court: (1) DEEMS this case sufficiently distinct from Harsman; and (2) FINDS that Plaintiff has satisfied the Show Cause requirement. A scheduling order shall issue by separate entry. IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 16, 2023 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge