Dadosky v. Mid-America Conversion Services, LLC, 2:22-cv-02503

Plaintiff Patricia Dadosky worked for CRC Technologies, a subcontractor to Mid-America Conversion Services (MCS), at a federally contracted facility operated by the DOE.
In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for federal contractor employees, allowing for medical or religious accommodations.
Dadosky requested a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate, which was denied by MCS's Accommodations Review Committee; her employment ended after subsequent appeal denials.
Dadosky sued CRC and MCS, alleging failure to accommodate her religious beliefs and retaliation under Title VII and Ohio law.
During deposition, MCS claimed attorney-client privilege over committee meeting discussions reviewing accommodation requests, leading to a discovery dispute.
The court is faced with deciding whether these committee communications are privileged and, if so, to what extent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Accommodations Review Committee discussions are protected by attorney-client privilege	Committee's function was primarily business (employment decisions), not legal; counsel's involvement was incidental.	Committee was created to seek legal advice on federal vaccine mandate accommodations; counsel's role was central.	MCS has not met its burden to prove predominance of legal advice; must submit detailed evidence in camera.
Whether presence of in-house counsel alone shields communications	Counsel's attendance does not auto-privilege all communications; only legal advice is protected.	Committee discussions were meant to secure legal advice regarding compliance and accommodations.	Court requires specifics on the legal nature of discussions; general affidavits insufficient.
Whether waiver of privilege applies if MCS relies on reasonableness of its process	MCS cannot claim privilege if relying on advice of counsel in defense; privilege may be waived partially.	No waiver occurred; committee was acting under a unique federal mandate context, seeking legal interpretations.	Court will decide on waiver after reviewing detailed submissions.
Whether all committee discussions are necessarily privileged	Only legal advice, not business or factual discussions, should potentially be protected.	Entire meetings should be privileged due to legal focus.	Court reserves decision, seeking a more granular record.

Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1981) (defining scope and rationale of the attorney-client privilege)
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1974) (attorney-client privilege is narrowly construed)
Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1976) (privilege protects only necessary disclosures for legal advice)
Reed v. Baxter, 134 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 1998) (articulating the elements for attorney-client privilege)
United States v. Dakota, 197 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 1999) (burden is on the party asserting privilege to establish its application)
United States v. Roxworthy, 457 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2006) (blanket or conclusory privilege assertions are insufficient)