Court Remands Question of Accommodating Religious Objection to COVID Testing

In In re Whitehead, (NJ App,, Dec. 22, 2022), a New Jersey state appellate court remanded to the state Civil Service Commission for further findings an appeal by a city zoning officer whose employment was terminated after she refused to be tested for COVID in order to return to work.  Plaintiff's refusal of testing was based on her religious beliefs which the court described:

She explained her refusal to undergo the test is founded on her belief the testing is required because of a fear she may be infected with COVID-19, and that fear is inconsistent with her religious belief that "God has not given us the spirit of fear." Thus, according to Whitehead, she could not, based on her religious beliefs, succumb to the fear she had COVID-19 upon which the City based its testing requirement.

The court explained its remand decision:

The ALJ determined the termination of Whitehead's employment did not violate the City's obligation under Title VII to reasonably accommodate Whitehead's religious belief because returning Whitehead to work without COVID-19 testing created an undue hardship — the risk of infecting the City's other on-site employees with COVID-19. That determination, which Whitehead does not challenge on appeal, applies solely to an accommodation — returning Whitehead to on-site work without testing — she no longer claims is reasonable, required, or appropriate...  

Whitehead, however, correctly argues the ALJ did not decide her claim the City should have allowed her to work from home as a reasonable accommodation based on her asserted religious belief.

Army Enjoined from Disciplining Plaintiffs Who Refuse COVID Vaccine on Religious Grounds

A Texas federal district court this week issued a preliminary injunction preventing the military from taking disciplinary action against ten members of the Army who object on religious grounds to complying with the Army's COVID vaccine mandate.  However, the injunction does not prevent the military from taking their vaccination status into account in making deployment, assignment and other operational decisions.  In the case, Schelske v. Austin, (ND TX, Dec. 21, 2022), the court said in part:

The Army has a valid interest in vaccinating its soldiers, and it has made the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory. But its soldiers have a right to religious freedom, which in this case includes a sincere religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine. Which side must yield? The answer lies in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which applies to the military: The Army must accommodate religious freedom unless it can prove that the vaccine mandate furthers a compelling interest in the least restrictive means. The Army attempts to meet that burden by pointing to the need for military readiness and the health of its force. But ... these generalized interests are insufficient. Rather, the Army must justify denying these particular plaintiffs’ religious exemptions under current conditions. Here, with 97% of active forces vaccinated and operating successfully in a post-pandemic world, the Army falls short of its burden....

The parties’ dispute centers on whether the Army can prove that application of the vaccine mandate to these plaintiffs furthers a compelling government interest through the least restrictive means possible. At every turn, however, the evidence before the Court weighs against the Army and in favor of the plaintiffs....

Finally, the Court recognizes that much of this litigation may soon be moot. Congress recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.... If signed by the President into law, the NDAA would require the Secretary of Defense to “rescind the mandate that members of the Armed Forces be vaccinated against COVID-19” within 30 days of enactment.... Despite these developments, the Army has refused to commit to halting separation proceedings against the plaintiffs by way of any agreement that this Court can enforce.

British Columbia's COVID Restrictions on Worship Services Upheld

In Beaudoin v. Attorney General of British Columbia, (BC Ct. App., Dec. 16, 2022), the highest court in the Canadian province of British Columbia upheld 2020 and 2021 COVID orders of BC's Provincial Health Officer that prohibited in-person worship services.  The court concluded that the Gathering and Events Order did not violate §15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects the equality rights of the churches that were plaintiffs in the suit, saying in part:

[T]he G&E orders did not create any distinction based on the religious or non-religious nature of the setting in question. Any distinction between settings permitted to remain open and those required to close was based on epidemiological data and the PHO’s assessment—supported by provincial, national and international data and experience—that the level of risk of viral transmission was unacceptably high in certain types of settings or gatherings involving certain types of activities. The risks associated with retail and other permitted activities—typically involving more transient contact between individuals of a transactional nature—were determined to be different than the risks associated with the activities that form an essential component of in-person religious worship and the celebration of faith.

The court also concluded that plaintiffs' religious freedom rights under §2 of the Charter were not infringed, saying in part:

In my view, the limitation on the religious freedom of the appellants stemming from the G&E orders has been shown to be a proportionate one in light of the unprecedented risk to public health that arose during the second wave of the virus, the need to take precautions to stop preventable deaths from occurring, and the need to protect the capacity of the healthcare system....

[T]here was an ample evidentiary basis upon which the PHO could reasonably conclude that, when faith-based communities gathered for worship, the risk of transmission was unacceptably high.... [O]bservance of the liturgy requires a spiritual communion of faith that involves participation of the congregation in physically intimate acts—sharing communion, prayer, and song. These activities were known to be associated with a heightened risk of transmission.... [T]here is no proper basis upon which a reviewing court could interfere with the scientific determinations underlying the PHO’s orders....

CBC News reports on the decision.

Suit Charges Selective Granting of Religious Exemptions From COVID Vaccine Mandate

A class action lawsuit was filed in a Virginia federal district court this week alleging that the University of Virgina Health System violated free exercise and establishment clause provisions of the federal and state constitutions as well as equal protection rights in the manner in which it administered applications from employees for religious exemptions from its COVID vaccine mandate. The complaint (full text) (memo in support of motion for preliminary injunction) in Phillips v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, (WD VA, filed 12/14/2022), alleges in part:

2. When UVA Health mandated that employees receive a COVID-19 vaccine, it knew that it was required to accommodate religious beliefs. But it wanted to minimize accommodations, and it believed that most objections were false political beliefs from members of the political right. 

3. So UVA Health drew up a list of churches that its human-resources personnel believed had official doctrines prohibiting vaccination. It then automatically exempted members of these religions from receiving the vaccine. As to employees who were members of other faiths, UVA Health automatically dismissed their religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccine as insincere, as non-religious in nature, as based on “misinformation,” or as a misinterpretation of the objector’s own religious beliefs....

5. The result was blatant—and blatantly unconstitutional—religious discrimination....

The complaint goes on to allege that UVA categorically dismissed as misinformation objections based on the relation of fetal cell lines to the vaccines. [Thanks to Samuel Diehl for the lead.]

Court Rejects Religious Challenges to COVID Mask Requirements

 In Joseph v. Becerra, (WD WI, Nov. 29, 2022), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected a pro se plaintiff's claims that VA and Postal Service COVID masking requirements violated his free exercise and Establishment Clause rights as well as various other rights. The court said in part:

Joseph refuses to wear a mask, which he views as a medical device and religious symbol. A Christian, Joseph claims to practice his faith in part by “taking a stance against what he sees and understands to be evil or unlawful,” such as the masking requirements.... Specifically, Joseph alleges that the masking requirements violate several of the tenets of his faith and promotes “Collectivism” over his individual rights. By promulgating a masking policy, Joseph further alleges that the federal government is seeking to establish “a nameless and covert religion/religious order” that “is a type of scientism ... discriminatory and divisive in nature and in practice.”...

[P]laintiff’s Establishment Clause claim is not only based on a Bivens claim not yet recognized by the Supreme Court, but also on the “faulty premise” that “scienticsm” is a religion. .... Admittedly, the governing case law does not precisely define the contours of what constitutes “religion,” but “courts are well-equipped to weed out spurious Establishment Clause ‘religions’ on grounds of common sense.”...

[E]ven if wearing a mask has substantially impaired plaintiff’s ability to exercise his faith while receiving in-person medical treatment, working, traveling in public spaces, or attending public events, rules that have only an “incidental effect of burdening a religious practice” will pass muster under the Free Exercise Clause provided they are applied neutrally and generally applicable.

Police Officer Sues Over Denial of COVID Vaccine Religious Exemption

This week, a former Boston police officer who is a Jehovah's Witness filed suit in a Massachusetts state trial court seeking $2 million in damages for the actions of the Boston Police Department in denying his request for a religious exemption from the Department's COVID vaccine mandate. He was placed on administrative leave and subsequently terminated. The complaint (full text) in Colon v. City of Boston, (MA Super. Ct., filed 11/28/2022), also alleges that he was ridiculed because of his religious beliefs. Boston.com reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Protecting Air Force Personnel Who Have Religious Objections to COVID Vaccine

 In Doster v. Kendall, (6th Cir., Nov. 29, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's grant of a class-wide preliminary injunction barring the Air Force from disciplining Air Force personnel who have sought religious exemptions from the military's COVID vaccine mandate. The injunction however did not interfere with the Air Force’s operational decisions over the Plaintiffs’ duties. The 6th Circuit concluded that plaintiffs' RFRA claim was likely to succeed on the merits, saying in part:

Some 10,000 members with a wide array of duties have requested religious exemptions from this mandate. The Air Force has granted only about 135 of these requests.... Yet it has granted thousands of other exemptions for medical reasons (such as a pregnancy or allergy) or administrative reasons (such as a looming retirement)....

Under RFRA, the Air Force wrongly relied on its “broadly formulated” reasons for the vaccine mandate to deny specific exemptions to the Plaintiffs, especially since it has granted secular exemptions to their colleagues.... The Air Force’s treatment of their exemption requests also reveals common questions for the class: Does the Air Force have a uniform policy of relying on its generalized interests in the vaccine mandate to deny religious exemptions regardless of a service member’s individual circumstances? And does it have a discriminatory policy of broadly denying religious exemptions but broadly granting secular ones? A district court can answer these questions in a “yes” or “no” fashion for the entire class.....

In the abstract, the Air Force may well have a compelling interest in requiring its 501,000 members to get vaccinated. It has also largely achieved this general interest, as evidenced by its ability to vaccinate over 97% of its force.... Under RFRA, however, the Air Force must show that it has a compelling interest in refusing a “specific” exemption to, say, Lieutenant Doster or Airman Colantonio.... To succeed ..., the Air Force must identify the duties of each Plaintiff and offer evidence as to why it has a compelling interest in forcing someone with those duties to take the vaccine or face a sanction....

If the Air Force can permanently retain those who cannot deploy because of their religious objections to a war, it must explain why it cannot permanently retain those who cannot deploy because of their religious objections to a vaccine.

(See prior related posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

3rd Circuit: Challenge to COVID Limits on Worship Services Is Moot

In Clark v. Governor of the State of New Jersey, (3d Cir., Nov. 28, 2022), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a challenge by two Christian congregations and their pastors to former COVID limits on in-person worship services is moot. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the suit.  In the case, plaintiffs challenged orders by the Governor of New Jersey that limited religious gatherings while permitting certain essential secular activities to continue. The majority said in part:

Appellants offer nothing more than speculation to suggest that we have a live controversy here. They invite us to hypothesize about future scenarios in which (a) not only does the COVID-19 pandemic reach crisis levels comparable to early-2020, but (b) New Jersey’s executive officials will choose to ignore everything—both legal and factual—we have learned since those early months and bluntly reintroduce legally-suspect gathering restrictions on religious worship. This will not do, and we will therefore affirm.

Judge Matey dissented, saying in part:

[N]o lively imagination is needed to conjure up future competitions between public health and religious liberty given the volatility of respiratory viruses, the increased probability of future pandemics, and the routine declaration of “emergencies” by Governor Murphy. I would take the opportunity to provide an answer now, giving the people of New Jersey, and its representatives, the guidance they are entitled to under the Constitution.

Delaware Chancery Court Says Religious Leaders' Challenge to COVID Orders Was Filed in Wrong Court

In In re Covid Related Restrictions on Religious Services, (Del. Ch., Nov. 22, 2022), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that a challenge by religious leaders to now-lifted Covid-related restrictions on religious services should be brought in Superior Court, not in Delaware's Chancery Court which is limited to providing equitable relief. The state's other courts are capable of awarding damages and issuing a declaratory judgment. In reaching that conclusion, however, the court modified the test it has traditionally used to determine whether to grant a permanent injunction. The court said that in order to obtain a permanent injunction, as opposed to a TRO or preliminary injunction, petitioner must only show that remedies at law would be inadequate. Threat of irreparable harm is one way, but not the only way, to show this. The court went on, however, to conclude:

[W]hen a plaintiff seeks to ground equitable jurisdiction on the potential need for a permanent injunction, the pled facts must support a reasonable apprehension that the defendant will act in a manner that will necessitate the injunction’s issuance. Under the reasonable-apprehension test, a plaintiff’s subjective fears are not sufficient. There must be objectively good reasons to think that a permanent injunction will be warranted. The plaintiffs have not pled facts that make it reasonably conceivable that the Governor will re-impose the Challenged Restrictions.

Football Coach Sues After Being Fired for Religious Refusal of Covid Vaccine

Suit was filed last week by the former head football coach for Washington State University who was fired after refusing on religious grounds to comply with the state's Covid vaccine mandate for state employees. The Athletic Department refused to grant him a religious accommodation, questioning the sincerity of his religious objections as well as the University's ability to accommodate his objections. The complaint (full text) in Rolovich v. Washington State University, (WA Super. Ct., filed 11/14/2022), alleges that the coach's firing amounts to religious discrimination in violation of state and federal law and infringement of plaintiff's free exercise and due process rights. Campus Reform reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit: Religious School's Challenge to Covid Restrictions Is Moot

In Horizon Christian School v. Brown, (9th Cir., Nov. 17, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the free exercise and parental rights challenges to the Oregon governor's previous Covid restrictions on in-person school classes is moot. The claim for nominal damages does not prevent mootness because the suit against the governor in her official capacity is barred by the 11th Amendment. The court denied leave to amend plaintiffs' complaint because defendant had qualified immunity.  Judge O'Scannlain filed a concurring opinion saying that if there were not qualified immunity, he would hold that the governor's order impinged a fundamental constitutional right.

Suit Challenges Refusal to Grant Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate

Suit was filed last week in a New Jersey state trial court by a Behavioral Support Technician at a state-operated group home who was fired after refusing on religious grounds to comply with the facility's Covid vaccine mandate. The facility refused to grant a religious exemption to plaintiff.  The complaint (full text) in Bowleg v. New Jersey Department of Human Services, (NJ Super. Ct., filed 11/3/2022), alleges that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination was violated by failing to accommodate plaintiff's religious objections, and by wrongful termination and retaliation that constitute religious discrimination. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Community College Vaccine Mandates Upheld

In George v. Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College District Board of Governors, (SD CA, Nov. 3, 2022), a California federal district court, in a 41-page opinion, rejected a variety of constitutional challenges and a religious discrimination challenge under Title VII to the Covid vaccine mandates of three community college districts. Plaintiffs were six employees and a student.  The mandates provided for medical and religious exemptions and accommodations. In evaluating plaintiffs' free exercise claims, the court concluded that both the mandates and the accommodation frameworks are neutral and generally applicable. In rejecting the Title VII claim, the court concluded that plaintiffs had shown no adverse employment action against them because they had all received religious exemptions.

Emergency Injunction Against NYC City-Worker Vaccine Mandates Sought from Supreme Court

An Emergency Application for an Injunction Pending Appellate Review (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in New Yorkers for Religious Liberty v. City of New York.  The petition seeks an injunction against enforcing New York City's Covid vaccine mandates for city workers against those with religious objections to the vaccine. Petitioners argue in part:

Because the City’s Mandates provide for individualized exemptions, play denominational favorites, grant the government substantial discretion, and treat religious objectors less favorably than secular (e.g., economic) objectors, the Mandates violate Applicants’ free-exercise rights.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the application.

Challenges To School COVID Mitigation Requirements Are Dismissed

 In Tracy v. Stephens, (D UT, Nov. 1, 2022), a Utah federal district court dismissed claims that plaintiffs' rights were violated by school district COVID orders requiring the wearing of masks and social distancing.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs have not identified what speech or type of speech was suppressed, meaning the court cannot apply the correct test to determine whether a regulation of it was permissible.... Plaintiffs have also not pleaded facts allowing for a plausible inference that by declining to wear masks or face coverings, or to participate in social distancing or isolation measures, they were engaged in inherently expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment....

Plaintiffs assert the Free Exercise Clause is implicated because they “hold a deeply held religious belief against the covering of their faces as this would violate their religious conscience,” and that they have a “God-given right to refuse unwanted medical treatment.”... But the Amended Complaint does not contain sufficient facts for the court to engage in the required analysis. Plaintiffs neither sufficiently identify the religious practices targeted and suppressed by Defendants, nor the provision(s) of the regulation(s) used by Defendants to target these practices. But Plaintiffs do identify an exemption process that would seemingly have allowed them to avoid the regulations’ requirements....

The court also dismissed plaintiffs' freedom of association, due process, equal protection, 4th, 9th and 13th Amendment, Civil Rights Act, conspiracy and state constitutional claims. 

Cert. Denied in Mootness Dismissal of Free Exercise Challenge to Mask Mandate

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning denied review in Resurrection School v. Hertel, (Docket No. 22-181, certiorari denied 10/31/2022). (Order List.) In the case, an en banc panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held by a vote of 13-1-3 that a free exercise challenge to Michigan's COVID mask mandate for school children is moot. (See prior posting.)

Vaccine Objector Loses Challenge

In Marte v. Montefiore Medical Center, (SD NY, Oct. 12, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed claims by a former Medical Center employee who sued after the Medical Center refused to provide her a reasonable accommodation when she refused to receive a COVID-19 vaccine which was required for all employees.  The court rejected her Title VII claim saying in part:

Plaintiff does not allege that she informed Defendant that she had a religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccination, or even that Defendant was aware that she has a religious objection to the vaccine; she pleads only that she told her employer she did not want the vaccine and asked for "a reasonable accommodation as defined by law." ... Defendant could not have discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her religious beliefs if Defendant was unaware of those beliefs....

Even if Plaintiff had pleaded a prima facie claim for religious discrimination, her argument is foreclosed by the Second Circuit's decision in We The Patriots. Defendant correctly argues that Plaintiff's requested accommodation would qualify as an undue hardship because it required Defendant to violate the law.

The court also rejected her free exercise, equal protection and other challenges.

Alternatives For Employees With Religious Exemptions From Vaccination Are Not Discriminatory

In Dollar v. Goleta Water District, (CD CA, Oct. 3, 2022), a California federal district court held that the COVID vaccination policy for employees of the Goleta Water District did not discriminate on the basis of religion against employees who obtained a religious exemption. Plaintiffs contended that the District's policy is discriminatory because it imposes special mask and testing requirements and requires authorization to enter certain buildings for plaintiffs because they have a religious exemption. The court said in part:

[P]laintiffs have not alleged that employees who receive exemptions on religious grounds are treated any differently from employees who receive exemptions on non-religious grounds. Instead, plaintiffs have only alleged that the policy treats them differently from other employees because of their vaccination status, not because of their religion.

5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On Alabama COVID Limits On Religious Gatherings

 On Oct. 3, the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Spell v. Edwards. Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice and U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore argued for appellant. In the case, a Louisiana federal district court dismissed a challenge to a now expired COVID Order limiting the size of religious gatherings. The district court dismissed because the challenged restrictions had already expired, and defendants had qualified immunity in the claim for damages. (See prior posting.) AP reports on the oral arguments.

COVID Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemption Is Upheld

In Does v. Hochul, (ED NY, Sept. 30, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed challenges to New York's COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers brought by five employees with religious objections to the vaccine. In evaluating plaintiffs' free exercise claims, the court concluded that the regulation, which contains no religious exemption, is subject only to rational basis review, saying in part:

The plaintiffs argue that the mandate is not neutral because it includes a medical exemption, and thus “treats religious exemptions less favorably than some nonreligious exemptions;” in the plaintiffs’ words, this “double standard is not a neutral standard.”... 

Section 2.61 is neutral on its face. It does not refer to religion at all, and applies to “all persons employed or affiliated with a covered entity” who could “potentially expose other covered personnel, patients or residents to” COVID-19; the only exception is for employees with medical conditions that qualify for a medical exemption...

The rule at issue in this case involves no “singling out” of religious employees. Indeed, Section 2.61 applies equally to all employees who can be vaccinated safely, regardless of their religious beliefs or practices, whether they have political objections to the vaccine, or question their efficacy or safety, or any of the many other reasons that people choose not to get vaccinated....

The court also rejected plaintiffs' Title VII challenge, saying in part:

The sole “accommodation” the plaintiffs seek—a religious exemption from the vaccine requirement— would impose an undue hardship on the Private Defendants because it would require them to violate state law.