Lea Landis, a former claims representative for the Directors Guild of America Producer Pension & Health Plan, has quietly reached a tentative settlement in a Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit that claimed she was discriminated against and fired for objecting to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Court filings state that Landis’ attorney notified Judge Michael Small of a conditional resolution and that a request to dismiss the case is expected by May 4, 2026. The parties have not disclosed the terms of the settlement.
According to MyNewsLA, Landis filed the complaint in February 2024, accusing the Plan of discrimination, retaliation and failing to prevent harassment after she challenged the vaccination rule. The lawsuit says Landis was granted a religious exemption in September 2021, only to have that accommodation later revoked. Attorneys for the Plan have denied the allegations and raised defenses that include the statute of limitations and an alleged failure by Landis to complain to management.
Industry protocols in mid-2021
Unions and producers rolled out updated return-to-work protocols in mid-2021 that allowed certain employers and productions to impose mandatory vaccination policies while spelling out how accommodations were supposed to work. As outlined by SAG-AFTRA and reflected in DGA guidance, those agreements encouraged employers to look at options such as masking, testing, reassignment or remote work before excluding someone from the workplace for refusing vaccination.
What Landis says happened
Landis, who the complaint says was hired in September 2008 in the Plan’s claims department, worked remotely after the pandemic began and, according to MyNewsLA, received positive reviews while working from home. The lawsuit alleges the Plan adopted a vaccine policy in July 2021, granted Landis a religious exemption in September 2021, then rescinded that accommodation in March 2022 and told her she had to be vaccinated and return to the office. She refused, the complaint states, and was terminated that same month.
Legal implications and what’s next
Because the settlement is described as conditional, court papers indicate the parties expect to file a dismissal by May 4, 2026, with the details kept under wraps for now. Employment-law experts say disputes like this typically hinge on whether an employer engaged in a good-faith “interactive process” and whether reasonable accommodations were possible without creating an undue hardship, standards that are set out in federal guidance. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notes that employers may require vaccines but must offer reasonable accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs or disabilities unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. EEOC guidance details those obligations and describes common accommodation options, including testing, masking, remote work or reassignment.
