Denial of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate Upheld

 In Matter of Ferrelli v State of New York, (App. Div., April 16, 2024), a New York state appellate court upheld the denial of religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate imposed for employment in the New York court system, The court held that the mandate was a neutral law of general applicability and thus was subject only to rational basis review. The court went on:

Marie Zweig, submitted her initial religious exemption application asserting that because of her Christian belief in the sanctity of life, she could not "in good conscience receive or benefit from the use of vaccines that are either tested on or produced using human cell lines derived from voluntarily aborted fetuses." On the supplemental form, Zweig acknowledged that she took over-the-counter medicines and would continue to do so, stating that she had "no knowledge that they were originally developed with the use of cell lines from aborted fetuses and [she] [has] determined that [she] can take them in good conscience" because "they were developed and approved long before they were tested on fetal cell lines." Respondents denied Zweig a religious exemption on the grounds that she failed to set forth a sincerely held religious belief....

... While reasonable people may disagree, upon review of Ms. Zweig's application, this Court cannot conclude that respondents' determination to deny her a religious exemption was so irrational as to be arbitrary and capricious....

West Virginia Governor Vetoes Vaccine Mandate Opt-Out for Parochial Schools

On Wednesday, West Virginia Governor Jim Justice vetoed House Bill 5105 which would have allowed private and parochial schools to opt out of the state's mandatory vaccination requirements for students. It also would have exempted full-time virtual public-school students from the immunization requirements unless they participate in activities that also involve other schools. In his Veto Letter (full text), the Governor says in part:

Since this legislation was passed, I have heard constant, strong opposition to this legislation from our State's medical community....

Additionally, we have heard from many private and parochial institutions all around the State, likewise requesting this bill be vetoed. We have heard from this community that they see this bill as purely divisive and, if signed into law, requiring consideration of adopting policies that will result in parents pulling their children from their schools.

AP reports on the Governor's action.

California's Removal of Personal Belief Exemption from School Immunization Requirement Is Upheld

 In Royce v. Bonta, (SD CA, March 25, 2024), a California federal district court upheld the constitutionality of a law enacted by California in response to a 2015 measles outbreak. The law removed the personal belief exemption, but retained the medical exemption, from the requirement that school children enrolled in public and private schools be immunized against nine specific diseases.  The law also gives immigrant and homeless children a grace period in which to prove compliance with the immunization requirement. The court rejected parents free exercise challenge to the law, concluding that the law is neutral and generally applicable, saying in part:

In considering California’s interest in the health and safety of students and the public at large, the risk posed by SB 277’s enumerated exemptions does not qualify as comparable to the risk posed by a personal belief exemption....  Accordingly, SB 277 is generally applicable....

There is a legitimate State interest in protecting the health and safety of students and the public at large, and SB 277’s repeal of California’s prior personal belief exemption is rationally related to furthering that interest.  Because Plaintiffs fail to allege facts from which an inference can be drawn to hold otherwise, SB 277 survives rational basis review.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise claim fails as a matter of law.

Denial of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate Did Not Violate Title VII or Constitution

In White v. University of Washington, (WD WA, March 22, 2024), a Washington federal district court rejected Title VII as well as constitutional challenges brought by a healthcare worker who was denied a religious exemption from Washington's Covid vaccine mandate. In discussing Plaintiff's Title VII claim of failure to reasonably accommodate, the court said in part:

With respect to COVID-19 in particular, guidance from the EEOC indicates that “increasing ‘the risk of the spread of COVID-19 to other employees or to the public’” is a ground for finding undue hardship on employers asked to grant religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccination mandates....

 The Ninth Circuit also has found on a motion to dismiss that undue hardship is established as a matter of law where a religious accommodation would require an employer to violate state or federal law.

The court also rejected plaintiff's due process, equal protection and free exercise claims, saying in part:

Plaintiff has made no allegations regarding what her religious beliefs are, let alone how they were burdened by Defendants’ adherence to Proclamation 21-14.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Says Catholic Charities Not Exempt from Unemployment Comp Law

 In Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, (WI Sup. Ct., March 14, 2024), the Wisconsin Supreme Court by a vote of 4-3 held that Catholic Charities Bureau and four of its sub-entities are not entitled to an exemption from the state's unemployment compensation law.  The statute exempts nonprofit organizations "operated primarily for religious purposes and operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches." The court concluded that under the statute, what is important is the purpose of the nonprofit organization, not the purpose of the church which controls it. The court said in part:

... [I]n determining whether an organization is "operated primarily for religious purposes" within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.02(15)(h)2., we must examine both the motivations and the activities of the organization....

CCB and the sub-entities profess to have a religious motivation.... However, accepting an organization's motivations does not end the inquiry as we must also examine its activities....

 Here, such criteria weigh in favor of a determination that CCB's and the sub-entities' activities are not "primarily" religious in nature.  The record demonstrates that CCB and the sub-entities, which are organized as separate corporations apart from the church itself, neither attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees.  Although not required, these would be strong indications that the activities are primarily religious in nature....

CCB's and the sub-entities' activities are primarily charitable and secular.  The sub-entities provide services to individuals with developmental and mental health disabilities.  These activities include job training, placement, and coaching, as well as services related to activities of daily living.  CCB provides background support and management services for these activities——a wholly secular endeavor....  

Such services can be provided by organizations of either religious or secular motivations, and the services provided would not differ in any sense....

The court also concluded that neither this inquiry nor the required payment of unemployment tax violates the Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses.

Justice Bradley, joined in part by Chief Justice Ziegler, filed a lengthy dissenting opinion, saying in part:

 Impermissibly entangling the government in church doctrine, the majority astonishingly declares Catholic Charities are not "operated primarily for religious purposes" because their activities are not "religious in nature."... The statute, however, requires only that a nonprofit be operated primarily for a religious reason.

Justice Hagedorn also filed a brief dissenting opinion.

AP reports on the decision, as does Courthouse News Service,

New York's Removal of Religious Exemption from School Vaccination Requirement Is Upheld

In Miller v. McDonald, (WD NY, March 11, 2024), a New York federal district court upheld New York's removal of religious exemptions from its mandatory requirement for vaccination of school children. It rejected Free Exercise challenges by Amish individuals and schools, finding, in part in reliance on the 2nd Circuit's We the Patriots decision, that the law was both neutral and generally applicable, and thus did not trigger heightened scrutiny.  The court said in  part:

... Plaintiffs allege that PHL § 2164 is not neutral because “the State targeted religious adherents by eliminating [the] long-standing religious exemption while leaving the medical exemption process in place.”... This allegation fails to establish non-neutrality.  Nothing in the text of PHL § 2164 as amended demonstrates any hostility to religion.  To the contrary, PHL § 2164 is neutral on its face, neither targeting religious belief nor singling it out for particularly harsh treatment.  And, as previously noted, We the Patriots affirmatively held that the repeal of a previously existing religious exemption is not, of itself, hostile to religion....

Moreover, the legislative history related to the repeal of the non-medical exemption contains no evidence of hostility towards religious belief.  Those sponsoring the relevant legislation in both the New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly made clear that their concern was public health...

The We the Patriots court explained that “where a law provides for an objectively defined category of people to whom the vaccination requirement does not apply, including a category defined by medical providers’ use of their professional judgment, such an exemption affords no meaningful discretion to the State” and thus does not render the law not generally applicable.

Title VII Challenge to Denial of Vaccine Exemption Survives Motion to Dismiss

In Prodan v. Legacy Health, (D OR, Feb. 12, 2024), an Oregon federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought by two former employees of Legacy Health who were denied religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. The court said in part:

... [C]ourts appear to be in agreement that a general allegation of religious conflict without identifying a conflicting belief is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss....

... [However] allegations of an allegedly religious belief coupled with an assertion that the COVID-19 vaccine conflicts with that belief is enough to plead a prima facie case of religious discrimination.

 In the case, one plaintiff alleged that her body is a temple of God and taking the Covid vaccine violates her conscience. The second defendant alleged that her body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit and refraining from injecting it with harmful chemicals and unknown substances honors the Temple.

Recission of Covid Mandate Did Not Totally Moot Navy SEALs' RFRA Challenge

 In U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Austin, (ND TX, Feb. 14, 2024), a Texas federal district court held preliminarily that the rescission of the military's Covid vaccine mandate only partially mooted a suit under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act brought by Navy SEALs who were denied a religious accommodation. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing satisfies the Court that, “[w]hile the Mandate may be gone, the effects of that Mandate and the discriminatory treatment the Class Members were subject to because of the Mandate still linger.” That is because Defendants have announced no changes to its overarching religious accommodations process. According to Plaintiffs, this allegedly “sham” process is what enabled the coercive and discriminatory treatment of the Class Members while their accommodation requests sat unadjudicated. The Mandate simply served as the catalyst that unveiled the problems with this broader process during the pandemic. These problems include: (1) indefinitely sitting on requests for religious accommodation; (2) foregoing the required individualized assessments, citing standardized policy memos (even if outdated) to satisfy the compelling interest requirement, and using boilerplate statements to suffice for demonstrating that the Navy’s action is the least restrictive means; (3) permitting discrimination and coercive tactics to pressure servicemembers to forego their religious beliefs; (4) authorizing Navy leadership to dictate denial of all requests without considering the individual circumstances of the requests and current conditions or facts; (5) permitting coercion and retaliation against commanding officers who recommend approval of religious accommodations despite the chain of command’s desire that requests be denied; and (6) prohibiting resubmission of denied requests and updates to pending requests due to a change of job, location, or other relevant circumstances.

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Expressed Hostility to Religious Belief of Vaccine Exemption Applicant Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

 In Hancock v. Oregon Health and Science University, (D OR, Feb. 8, 2024), an Oregon federal district court dismissed without prejudice a claim by a lecturer at the University that her 1st Amendment rights were violated in the process of denying her claim of a religious exemption from the University's Covid vaccine mandate.  Plaintiff claimed that various of the defendants:

... expressed overt hostility to the religious beliefs of Plaintiff by declaring Plaintiff's religious beliefs 'personal moral choices and/or conscientious objection rather than a tenet of a religious faith,' merely her 'right to have religious freedom or conscientiously object to the vaccine' rather than a sincerely held religious belief and 'concerns over vaccine safety or content' not a sincerely held religious belief but rather a 'religious argument' and 'inconsistent with proven facts.'

The court held that mere expression of hostility toward plaintiff's religious beliefs does not create tangible harm that can be remedied, and so plaintiff lacks standing. It went on to hold that even if plaintiff had standing, she did not adequately allege that defendants substantially burdened her religious beliefs. The court said in part:

At best, the Court identifies only two allegations that could plausibly be related to coercion: (1) "Defendant OHSU's request for additional information was meant to belittle and shame Plaintiff for her religious beliefs and convince her she did not possess the religious beliefs she possessed"; and (2) "Board Defendant's [sic] placed pressure on Plaintiff to conform to the prevailing approved religion by proclaiming which religious beliefs were worthy of religious exceptions and which were not."...

... [N]either allegation addresses what effect this alleged pressure had on plaintiff.

Finally, the court concluded that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 

Court Rules On Class Action Certification of Claims by Religious Objectors to Covid Vaccine

 In Chavez v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, (ND CA, Jan. 28,2024), a California federal district court refused to certify as a class action a suit on behalf of employees of the Transit District (BART) who were denied a religious exemption or accommodation from BART's Covid vaccine mandate. The court concluded that the disparate factual issues underlying the claims under Title VII and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act means that common issues of law or fact do not predominate. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs submitted nearly as many systems of belief and grounds for objection as they did applications. Whether or not any one request rests on a bona fide religious belief presents an individual inquiry that requires the consideration of evidence pertaining only to the response in question....

BART’s undue hardship showing—likely to be the dispositive issue in this action—also rests on individual factual issues....

It similarly concluded that common issues did not predominate in plaintiffs' First Amendment Free Exercise Claim, saying in part:

Plaintiffs cite myriad scripture and personal experiences, CDC VARS data and concerns regarding health consequences ... among others, as grounds for objection. Many identify non-vaccination as a core religious tenant, some characterize their decision as a “personal choice,” a number discuss medical concerns.... [T]he need to determine whether plaintiffs have met the bona fide religious belief threshold generates “an unmanageable variety of individual . . . factual issues,” and forecloses on class certification....

Finally, the court concluded that plaintiffs also failed to meet the requirement that a class action is the superior way to adjudicate the claims.

In UnifySCC v. Cody, (ND CA, Jan. 29, 2024), a different Northern District of California judge certified a class action (except as to damages) on behalf of 463 individuals who obtained a religious exemption from the Covid vaccine mandate of San Jose County but who, because they were in high risk roles, were placed on administrative leave until reassignments or transfers to lower risk positions became available.  The court ruled:

This Class is certified with respect to the following common questions regarding Defendants’ liability: 

1. Whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise and equal protection of the law by prioritizing medical exemptions over religious exemptions in high-risk settings; 

2. Whether Defendants’ Risk Tier System violated the Free Exercise Clause and Equal Protection Clause because it relegated Plaintiffs and the Class members to unpaid leave but allowed some unvaccinated or non-boosted employees to continue to work; 

3. Whether the County’s religious exemption and/or accommodation procedure was either non-neutral or not generally applicable such that it constitutes an individualized assessment ... and is thereby subject to strict scrutiny; 

4. Whether Defendants provided Individual Plaintiffs and the Class members with reasonable accommodation as required under FEHA and Title VII; and 

5. Whether Defendants violated the Establishment Clause by demonstrating hostility towards religion. 

The Class is NOT certified with respect to questions of damages.

Court Decides 7 Cases of Health Care Employees' Refusal to Receive Covid Vaccine

 A Delaware federal district court judge yesterday handed down opinions in seven lawsuits against the same medical center that terminated employees who requests for religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate were denied. In 5 of the cases, the court refused to dismiss plaintiffs' Title VII failure to accommodate claims because plaintiffs had plausibly alleged a sincere religious belief and that their objections to the Covid vaccine were related to that belief. Aiken v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., (D DE, Jan. 25, 2024); Hernandez v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., (D DE, Jan. 25, 2024); Massotti v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., (D DE, Jan. 25, 2024); Proud v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., (D DE, Jan. 25, 2024); White v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., (D DE, Jan. 25, 2024). In 2 cases, the court concluded that plaintiffs' objections to the vaccine were not plausibly connected to a sincerely held religious belief. McDowell v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., (D DE, Jan. 25, 2024); Osborne v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., (D DE, Jan.25, 2024). Each opinion details the religious claim asserted by plaintiff.

EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit Against Hospital That Refused Vaccine Exemption Settled For $50,000

The EEOC announced yesterday that Trinity Health Grand Rapids, a Michigan hospital, has agreed to pay $50,000 in damages to settle a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of a job applicant whose job offer was rescinded when the applicant applied for a religious exemption to the requirement that employees receive a flu shot. The applicant had received a conditional offer for a position as business office coordinator. The consent decree also enjoins the hospital from refusing to hire applicants because of their sincerely held religious beliefs opposing taking flu vaccine, or denying religious exemptions from vaccination in the future, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. It also calls for compliance training of personnel.

Denial of Vaccine Mandate Exemption for Nurse Is Upheld

 In St. Hillaire v, Montefiore Medical Center, (SD NY, Jan. 16, 2024), a New York federal district court rejected claims of religious discrimination brought by a hospital's Patient Safety Manager who was denied a religious exemption from a state Covid vaccine mandate and subsequently was fired. Plaintiff is an Apostolic Pentecostal Christian.  Denying Plaintiff's claim under Title VII, the court said in part:

As a New York hospital system, Defendant is legally obligated to comply with the DOH Mandate and is subject to stringent penalties for non-compliance, including loss of its license.... Defendant could not have accommodated Plaintiff’s request because Plaintiff was a registered nurse... and was a person covered by the DOH Mandate. Had Defendant granted Plaintiff’s request for an exemption, it would have been in direct violation of New York State law, thus suffering an undue hardship.

The court also rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claim because defendant is not a state actor. 

School Did Not Violate Title VII in Denying Religious Exemption to Covid Rules

In Russo v. Patchogue-Medford School District, (ED NY, Jan. 12, 2024), a New York federal district court held that a school district did not violate title VII's ban on religious discrimination in employment when it refused to accommodate a school psychologist's religious objection to a state mandate to either test weekly for Covid or show proof of vaccination.  Plaintiff considered both of these alternatives to be medical interventions that would violate her faith in God's ability to protect her and keep her healthy.  She instead sought as an accommodation either periodically completing a health questionnaire or working remotely. Rejecting those alternatives, the school placed her on unpaid leave. The court said in part:

The state’s test-or-vaccination requirement was a neutral law of general applicability that only incidentally affected employees with religious objections and did not “target[] religious conduct for distinctive treatment.” ... The requirement is, therefore, constitutionally permissible if it survives rational basis review.... The state’s requirement clearly satisfies this standard....

Plaintiff’s claim that she was unlawfully denied a religious accommodation also fails....

A proposed accommodation becomes an undue hardship for an employer if it would cause the employer to violate the law....

Defendant’s rejection of Plaintiff’s proposed accommodation of working remotely also did not violate Title VII.... [H]er proposal that she be permitted to work remotely going forward included a request that Defendant cut back on her job responsibilities to accommodate remote work.... Plaintiff, therefore, implicitly conceded that her proposed accommodation would “involve the elimination of an essential function of [her] job,” thereby rendering the proposal unreasonable....

The court also concluded that plaintiff's employer did not violate the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act.

Denial of Religious Exemption to Vaccine Mandate Did Not Violate Title VII

 In Craven v. Shriners Hospital for Children, (D OR, Jan. 2, 2024), an Oregon federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought by a hospital maintenance technician who was fired after his claim for a religious exemption from the hospital's Covid vaccine mandate was denied. The court concluded that plaintiff had not adequately alleged that his objections to the vaccine were religious in nature. It also concluded that filing an amended complaint would be futile.  The court said in part:

As Plaintiff wrote, he objected to the COVID-19 vaccine because its “ingredients include carcinogens, neurotoxins, animal viruses, animal blood, allergens, and heavy metals,” which “can cause serious harm and even death to the body.” ... This judgment—on the potential danger of the vaccine due to its physical composition—was scientific and medical, not religious. Of course, this Court does not question the sincerity of Plaintiff’s belief that his “body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.”...  But Plaintiff’s beliefs about the composition of his body and that of the vaccine are independent of one another; whether Plaintiff’s body is a temple has no bearing on whether the vaccine contains carcinogens or whether, as a result of its ingredients, it “can cause serious harm.” 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s allegations, even if fleshed out in a subsequent filing, would fail to state a claim of religious discrimination under Title VII.

City Could Not Require Pastor's Certificate as Condition of Vaccine Exemtpion

In Carrero v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, Jan. 2, 2024), an Illinois federal district court allowed a Chicago city employee who has been placed on unpaid leave for refusing to comply with the city's Covid vaccine mandate to move ahead with several claims.  The employee was denied a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate because he did not furnish a signed affirmation of belief from his pastor who had a policy of not signing such forms for his 15,000 mega-church members. Allowing plaintiff to move ahead with his 1st Amendment Free Exercise claim, the court said in part:

... At this point of the proceedings, it is reasonable to infer that the City denied Carrero’s application because his religious leader did not confirm the validity of his belief....

Carrero’s beliefs may not be sincerely held or religious in nature. The City is free to challenge those points in the exemption process and in this case....

But the City may not single out religious beliefs merely because they do not conform to the tenets of a religion as interpreted by a spiritual leader. Because that is what Carrero alleges the City’s Policy did to him, he has sufficiently pled that the Policy’s exemption language is not neutral as applied to him....

The court also allowed plaintiff to move ahead with claims under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Illinois Human Rights Act and Illinois' Civil Rights Act.

EEOC Announces Settlements In 2 Religious Discrimination Lawsuits

In the last several days, the EEOC has announced settlements in two unrelated Title VII religious discrimination suits filed by the agency.  Last week the EEOC announced that Children's Healthcare of Atlanta will pay $45,000 in damages to a former maintenance employee who was denied a religious exemption from the healthcare system's flu vaccine requirement. The employee, who worked primarily outside and had limited contact with the public or other staff, had been granted an exemption in 2017 and 2018, but was denied one and fired in 2019. Under the consent decree settling the suit, Children's Healthcare will also modify its religious exemption policy to presume eligibility for employees who work away from patients and other staff.

Yesterday the EEOC announced that Triple Canopy, Inc., a company that provides protective services to federal agencies, will pay $110,759 in damages to an employee who was denied a religious accommodation of his Christian belief that men must wear beards. The company denied the accommodation because the employee was unable to provide additional substantiation of his beliefs or a supporting statement from a documented religious leader. The company will also institute a new religious accommodation policy.

Minnesota Court Hears Oral Arguments on Pharmacist's Refusal To Dispense Morning-After Pill

The Minnesota Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Anderson v. Aitkin Pharmacy Services, LLC, (Dec. 21, 2023). At issue is whether a pharmacist violated the sex discrimination provisions of the Minnesota Human Rights Act when, because of his religious belief, he refused to dispense the morning-after emergency contraception drug ella and instead referred her to another pharmacist who could fill her prescription the next day. ADF issued a press release regarding the case.

11th Circuit: Appeal of DEA's Denial of Religious Exemption to Controlled Substances Act Must Be in Circuit Court

In Soul Quest Chruch of Mother Earth, Inc. v. Attorney General, (11th Cir., Dec. 18, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that an appeal of the DEA's denial of a religious exemption to a church so it could legally use ayahuasca (a sacramental tea) needs to be made to a Circuit Court of Appeals, not to a federal district court. The issue turned on whether the DEA's denial was made "under" the statutory provisions of the Controlled Substances Act, or whether it was made "under" the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  21 USC §877 requires appeals of final decisions made under the Control and Enforcement subchapter of the CSA to go to federal circuit courts.  Judge Newsom dissenting argued that the decision was made "under" the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and so was appealable to a federal district court.

Appeals Court Hears Religious Challenges to Indiana Abortion Restrictions

On Wednesday, the Indiana Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana et al. v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1. (Video of full oral arguments.) In the case, an Indiana state trial court preliminarily enjoined the state from enforcing Indiana's law restricting abortions against plaintiffs whose religious beliefs permit or require abortions in situations not allowed under Indiana law. (See prior posting.) The trial court also certified the case as a class action. (See prior posting.) Indy Star reports on the oral arguments.