Supreme Court: Wisconsin's Religious Nonprofit Exemption from Unemployment Comp. Tax Must Include Catholic Charities

In Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, (Sup. Ct., June 5, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, unanimously held that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment's religion clauses when it held that Catholic Charities Bureau does not qualify for the exemption from unemployment compensation tax that is granted by state statute to nonprofits "operated primarily for religious purposes". The Wisconsin Supreme Court had held that Catholic Charities' activities were no different than those offered by a secular organization; they did not involve worship services, religious outreach, ceremony, or religious education. In reversing the Wisconsin supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court said in part:

A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination....

This case involves that paradigmatic form of denominational discrimination....

Put simply, petitioners could qualify for the exemption while providing their current charitable services if they engaged in proselytization or limited their services to fellow Catholics. Petitioners’ Catholic faith, however, bars them from satisfying those criteria. Catholic teaching, petitioners say, forbids “‘misus[ing] works of charity for purposes of proselytism.’” ... It also requires provision of charitable services “without making distinctions ‘by race, sex, or religion.’” ...  Many religions apparently impose similar rules.... Others seemingly have adopted a contrary approach....

Wisconsin’s exemption, as interpreted by its Supreme Court, thus grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices.

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

As a matter of church law, Catholic Charities and its sub-entities are an arm of the Diocese of Superior, and thus, for religious purposes, are not distinct organizations.  But, when determining whether Catholic Charities was a religious organization entitled to a tax exemption, the Wisconsin Supreme Court nevertheless relied on Catholic Charities’ separate corporate charter to treat it as an entity entirely distinct and separate from the Diocese. That holding contravened the church autonomy doctrine....

Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) allows a State to exempt from its unemployment-coverage mandate any “organization which is operated primarily for religious purposes and which is operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches.”... The State treats church affiliated charities that proselytize and serve co-religionists exclusively differently from those that do not.... Because I agree that this distinction violates the neutrality principle of the Constitution’s Religion Clauses, I join the Court’s opinion in full.

... [B]oth the text and legislative history of FUTA’s religious-purposes exemption confirm that Congress used the phrase “operated primarily for religious purposes” to refer to the organization’s function, not its inspiration....

Congress sought to extend to most nonprofit workers the stability that unemployment insurance offers, while exempting a narrow category of church-affiliated entities most likely to cause significant entanglement problems for the unemployment system—precisely because their work involves preparing individuals for religious life. It is perfectly consistent with the opinion the Court hands down today for States to align their §3309(b)(1)(B)-based religious-purposes exemptions with Congress’s true focus.

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision. 

West Virginia Governor Tells Schools to Provide Religious and Philosophical Exemptions from Vaccine Requirements

Last week, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey released a letter (full text) addressed to parents, students and school officials reaffirming that his Executive Order 7-25 is still in effect. The Executive Order issued last January provides for religious and conscientious exemptions for students from compulsory school immunization requirements.  He based the Order on the provisions of the state's Equal Protection for Religion Act of 2023. The Governor's recent letter, issued in light of the fact that the state legislature has not taken action on the matter, sets out a procedure for parents to use in applying for a religious or philosophical exemption. The governor's office also issued a press release summarizing the letter. The Inter-Mountain reports on the Governor's action.

Employees' Suit Against School Board for Denying Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Moves Ahead

Decisions in suits by former employees who were denied religious exemptions from employer Covid vaccine mandates continue to be handed down by the courts.  Here is a recent example:

In Brandon v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, (ED MO, May 8, 2025), a Missouri federal district court in a 76-page opinion refused to dismiss 16 employees' free exercise, equal protection, Title VII and state human rights act claims against the St. Louis school board. However, damage claims against the superintendent and the chief human resource officer were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. Plaintiffs all had requested religious exemptions from the Board's Covid vaccine mandate. The Board received 189 requests for religious exemptions from its 3500 employees. None of the requests were granted. The board granted between 40 and 50 disability and medical exemptions. The court said in part:

Defendants have failed to meet their initial summary-judgment burden of showing that no genuine dispute of material fact exists as to Plaintiffs’ sincere religious beliefs....

... [T]he very providing of exemptions rendered the contract not generally applicable because it “‘invite[d]’ the government to decide which reasons for not complying with the policy [were] worthy of solicitude.”...  For these reasons, the Court holds that the strict-scrutiny standard governs here....

Defendants point to three interests that Policy 4624 purportedly served: (1) education, (2) stemming the spread of COVID-19, and (3) promoting “the health, safety, and general welfare of students.”...

Defendants argue that Policy 4624 was necessary to providing “children of any and all backgrounds safe access to education, social mobility, and athletic, cultural[,] and social development.”...  The Court agrees that these interests are compelling. ...

But the Court disagrees that  Defendants have satisfied their summary-judgment burden and proven that Policy 4624 was narrowly tailored to serve those interests....

... [T]he Board could have granted every request for religious exemption, while still granting all the disability and medical exemptions that it granted, and achieved a total employee vaccination rate of between 93.1%  ... and 93.4%.....

In sum, the record at a minimum strongly indicates that the Board denied all religious-exemption requests wholesale, and Plaintiffs thus received vastly different treatment than their comparators did....

Plaintiffs marshal evidence that the Board denied Plaintiffs’ religious-exemption requests because the Board thought that the religious-exemption requests were less important than other exemption requests. With this evidence, Plaintiffs more than show that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether Defendants unlawfully intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs based on Plaintiffs’ protected religious beliefs....

"Religious" Belief Defined Broadly in Title VII Claim

Numerous cases challenging employers' refusal to grant exemptions to Covid vaccine mandates during the height of the Covid epidemic continue to wend their way through the courts. Here is the latest.

In Huber v. TIAA, (WD VA, April 17, 2025), a Virginia federal district court refused to dismiss a former employee's Title VII failure to accommodate claim and allowed the parties to move on to discovery.  The employer had refused to grant a religious accommodation, claiming that the employee's objections were secular, not religious.  According to the court:

... [Plaintiff] subscribes to “a faith based holistic healing process” promoted by the Optimum Health Institute in Southern California....  A page from the Optimum Health Institute’s website, which Huber attaches as an exhibit to the amended complaint, describes the Institute as “a healing ministry of the Free Sacred Trinity Church, which promotes healing through the use of non-medical, all-natural, holistic healing practices.”...

Shortly after Huber filed her amended complaint, the Fourth Circuit clarified that courts evaluating religious discrimination claims should not rigorously examine whether a plaintiff’s beliefs are “religious in nature.”...  It confirmed that courts should limit the inquiry to “whether ‘the beliefs professed . . . are, in the claimant’s own scheme of things, religious[.]’”...  An employee’s claim that her belief “is an essential part of a religious faith must be given great weight” in this analysis....

... [T]his court finds that Huber has plausibly alleged the beliefs she communicated to TIAA were “religious in nature.” Huber’s asserted faith, which “comes from the belief in a universal force and energy” and focuses on holistic healing ... is different than the biblical Christianity employees often invoke when seeking exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine requirements....  But Title VII protects nonconventional as well as conventional religious beliefs—courts “are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them ‘incomprehensible.’...

The amended complaint does not provide a clear or complete account of Huber’s conversation with the TIAA interviewer, and it is possible that later fact development will show she did not communicate an objection that was based on a sincerely held religious belief.  But the court finds that her allegations are sufficient to allow for discovery on this issue....

Religious Exemption from Medicaid Program Not Required

In Kynwulf v. Corcoran, (SD OH, April 11, 2025), an Ohio federal district court rejected plaintiff's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when he was denied a religious exemption from the estate recovery provisions of Ohio Medicaid’s Specialized Recovery Services program. The court said in part:

Mr. Kynwulf’s allegations do not raise a plausible conclusion that the SRS Program is a coercive program sufficient to state a claim under the Free Exercise Clause. He does not allege that the SRS program is mandatory – instead, he alleges that when he requested to be removed from the SRS program, he was removed.... These allegations make clear that Medicaid’s SRS Program neither compelled nor coerced Mr. Kynwulf such as to prevent him from continuing to practice his religion. 

Instead, Mr. Kynwulf seeks to require Ohio Medicaid to conform its program to the tenets of his religion. However, although the Free Exercise Clause “protects, to a degree, an individual’s right to practice [his] religion within the dictates of [his] conscience, it does not convene on an individual the right to dictate [that a governmental program] conform to [his] religion.”... The Free Exercise Clause “is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what the individual can exact from the government.”...

3rd Circuit Rejects Title VII Claim by ER Doctor Who Was Denied Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In Bushra v. Main Line Health, Inc., (3d Cir., April 10, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a Title VII suit brought by an emergency room physician who was denied a religious exemption from his hospital's Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Dr. Bushra’s arguments on appeal largely challenge the District Court’s determination that MLH established the undue hardship defense to his religious discrimination claims. ...

MLH provided unrebutted expert testimony that unvaccinated healthcare workers, like Dr. Bushra, presented an increased risk of transmitting COVID-19 to others, particularly when they interacted with vulnerable groups.... [P]atients and employees at MLH died from COVID-19, and the on-site spread of this serious infectious disease compromised MLH’s mission and ability to care for sick patients, and it jeopardized the health and efficacy of its employees and staff.  MLH’s expert additionally testified, contrary to Dr. Bushra’s assertion, that alternative infection control strategies, such as frequent testing and masking, were not sufficient to prevent transmission....

As MLH has presented substantial evidence of undue hardship, and Dr. Bushra has not provided any “actual evidence in the record on which a jury could decide an issue of fact [his] way,” we will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment.

Court Upholds California's Repeal of Personal Belief Exemption from School Vaccination Mandate

 In Royce v. Pan, (SD CA, March 17, 2025), a California federal district court rejected a free exercise challenge to California's removal of the "personal belief" exemption from the state's compulsory school vaccination requirements. The court rejected arguments that the repeal of the exemption evidenced hostility to religion and that the law is not generally applicable because it exempts comparable secular activity.  The court said in part:

First, SB 277 did not specifically repeal a religious exemption.  Rather, it repealed a general personal belief exemption that was secular and neutral on its face.  Repeal of a secular exemption does not demonstrate hostility towards any religion or religious practice.  Second, even if SB 277 could be characterized as repealing a religious exemption, repealing a prior religious exemption is not hostile towards religion per se....

Plaintiffs argue that SB 277 is substantially underinclusive and treats secular activity more favorably than religious exercise by eliminating exemptions for religious reasons but permitting secular exemptions that undermine the State’s interest in a similar way.....  In particular, Plaintiffs highlight medical exemptions, exemptions for home schooled children and children enrolled in independent student programs, exemptions for students who qualify for IEPs, exemptions for students over 18 years of age, and conditional enrollment for migrant, homeless, foster, and military children.....

The court concluded that none of these exemptions are comparable to a religious exemption and that rational basis review applies because the law is neutral and generally applicable.

2nd Circuit Rejects Amish Challenge to Removal of Religious Exemption from School Vaccine Requirements

In Miller v. McDonald, (2d Cir., March 3, 2025), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that New York state's removal of a religious belief exemption from its school immunization law did not violate the 1st Amendment free exercise rights of Amish parents or Amish schools. The court held that the public health law is neutral on its face and its legislative history does not reveal an anti-religious bias. It also rejected plaintiffs' contention that the law is not generally applicable, saying in part:

Plaintiffs contend that exempting students for medical reasons treats comparable secular conduct more favorably than religious beliefs.....

Repealing the religious exemption decreases “to the greatest extent medically possible” the number of unvaccinated students and thus the risk of disease; maintaining the medical exemption allows “the small proportion of students” who medically “cannot be vaccinated” to avoid the health consequences that “taking a particular vaccine would inflict.” ...  Exempting religious objectors, however, detracts from that interest.  Religious exemptions increase “the risk of transmission of vaccine-preventable diseases among vaccinated and unvaccinated students alike.”...   

In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to allege that § 2164 is anything but neutral and generally applicable.  The district court therefore did not err in applying rational basis review. As noted, Plaintiffs have conceded that the law satisfies rational basis review....

[Plaintiffs] claim that the school immunization law mandates two impossible options: inject their children with vaccines, forcing conduct against their religious beliefs, or forego educating their children in a group setting, requiring them to sacrifice a central religious practice.  True, Plaintiffs have shown that § 2164 burdens their religious beliefs and practices; but those burdens are not equivalent to the existential threat the Amish faced in Yoder.  Unlike in Yoder, compliance with § 2164 would not forcibly remove Amish children from their community at the expense of the Amish faith or the Amish way of life. 

Moreover, Yoder’s holding is limited by the state’s interest in protecting public health....

Kansas Court Says Statute Sets Low Threshold for Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In St. Luke's Health System, Inc. v. State of Kansas ex rel. Schultz, (KS App., Jan. 17, 2025), a Kansas state appeals court held that under a Kansas statute, an employee's request for a religious exemption from an employer's Covid vaccine mandate does not require as much proof as the trial court in the case demanded.  The appeals court said in part:

The statute does not require the employee to articulate a basis for their sincerely held religious beliefs, nor does it require the employee to provide written evidence of those religious beliefs, as the district court held Glean was required to do. It only requires the employee to explain in a written statement that complying with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, which Glean did. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663(a). And, in fact, the statute specifies:  "An employer shall grant an exemption requested in accordance with this section based on sincerely held religious beliefs without inquiring into the sincerity of the request." K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663(b)....

Not only did she [employee Sheryl Glean] explain that her refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine is based on her religious views—as in she believes the vaccine may cause harm to her body—she clarified the religious basis for her concern (or why she believes getting the vaccine would be wrong) when she said since she became a Christian she believes the Bible tells her that her body is holy. See 1 Corinthians 6:19-20..... Glean further evidenced the religiosity of her beliefs when she stated that she had discussed her concerns about getting the vaccine with the pastor from her church. Glean's invocation of both the Bible and her pastor as sources of guidance in this matter evidence the religiosity of her beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine.

1st Circuit Accepts Employer's Undue Hardship Defense for Denying Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccination

In Rodrique v. Hearst Communications, Inc., (1st Cir., Jan. 17, 2025), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a Title VII lawsuit brought by a TV news photographer who asserted religious objections to his employer's Covid vaccine mandate. The employer refused to provide an accommodation, asserting that it would impose an undue hardship. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claim on the ground that his objection was not religious but instead reflected "a personal medical judgment about the necessity of COVID-19 vaccination" expressed in religious language. On appeal, the 1st Circuit held that it did not have to reach the issue of whether plaintiff's objections were religious because defendant had adequately carried its undue hardship defense. The court said in part:

Rodrique contends that Hearst has not proffered admissible evidence showing that the vaccine actually protects against the transmission of COVID-19.  As Rodrique frames the issue, if the vaccine does not reduce the likelihood of COVID-19 transmission -- as opposed to merely mitigating symptoms, for example -- then Hearst suffers no undue hardship by granting him an exemption.  And in Rodrique's view, only expert testimony can support this conclusion.,,,  

,,, [W]e disagree with Rodrique that Hearst did not provide legally sufficient evidence....  Because ... Hearst relied "on the objective, scientific information available to [it]," with particular attention to "the views of public health authorities," we hold that it acted reasonably when it determined that vaccinated employees are less likely to transmit COVID-19 than unvaccinated employees.

Business Insurance reports on the decision.

4th Circuit: Covid Vaccine Religious Accommodation Suit Should Not Have Been Dismissed

 In Barnett v. INOVA Health Care Services, (4th Cir., Jan. 7, 2025), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Title VII and state law claims by a former registered nurse who was denied a religious exemption or accommodation from her employer's Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Barnett has sufficiently alleged her beliefs are religious in nature.  Specifically, Barnett alleged, amongst other things:  (1) “it would be sinful for her to engage with a product such as the vaccination after having been instructed by God to abstain from it”; (2) her “religious reasons for declining the covid vaccinations. . . were based on her ‘study and understanding of the Bible and personally directed by the true and living God’”; and (3) receiving the vaccine would be sinning against her body, which is a temple of God, and against God himself....  At this stage, these allegations are sufficient to show that Barnett’s “belief is an essential part of a religious faith” that “must be given great weight[,]” ... and are plausibly connected with her refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

4th Circuit: Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply in Challenge to No Religious Exemption in Vaccination Law

In West Virginia Parents for Religious Freedom v. Christiansen, (4th Cir., Dec. 31, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a West Virginia federal district court erred in applying the Pullman abstention doctrine in a suit challenging the constitutionality of West Virginia's vaccine mandate for school children. Plaintiffs contended that the absence of a religious exemption in the mandate violates the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The majority said in part:

Pullman abstention is typically reserved for a situation where the state law being presented is unclear and could be interpreted in a way that avoids the federal constitutional issue....  And Pullman abstention is not applicable if the state law is not subject to an interpretation that would render unnecessary the adjudication of a federal constitutional question....

 ... [T]he only state law presented for decision here is the Vaccination Mandate.  On the other hand, the only state law identified as being unclear is the recently adopted [Equal Protection for Religion Act].  And the Plaintiffs are not challenging the Vaccination Mandate under EPRA.  Rather, the Plaintiffs pursue their Free Exercise claim solely under the Free Exercise Clause.... 

... “[A]bstention cannot be ordered simply to give state courts the first opportunity to vindicate the federal claim.”

Judge Berner filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In several cases ..., this court and the Supreme Court have found abstention proper because the challenged law’s relationship with a different state law or constitutional provision was unsettled....

Because the relationship between the Vaccination Mandate and the EPRA is unsettled, this case satisfies the first Pullman requirement. 

This case also meets the second Pullman precondition.... There is no requirement that the resolution of the state law issue necessarily moot the federal constitutional issue. Instead, it is enough that questions of state law “may dispose of the case and avoid the need for deciding the constitutional question.”

EEOC Sues Employer for Refusal to Grant Religious Accommodation to Covid Vaccine Mandate

The EEOC announced yesterday that it had filed a Title VII lawsuit against the North Carolina-based Rex Healthcare, Inc. for refusing to grant a religious accommodation to an employee who objected to receiving the Covid vaccination.  According to the EEOC:

[I]n 2021 Rex Healthcare implemented a policy mandating that all employees receive a COVID-19 vaccination unless they were granted an exemption because of their religious beliefs or a disability. The charging party in the EEOC’s suit, who worked remotely, requested a religious exemption in accordance with the policy. Even though the employee had previously been granted an exemption from being required to take the flu vaccination based on her religious beliefs, the request for an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination was denied.

The employee submitted multiple follow up requests with additional explanations of her religious beliefs in support of her request. Despite the employee articulating a sincerely held religious belief, Rex Healthcare denied the employee’s accommodation requests and subsequently fired her for failing to comply with the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Hospital Employee's Vaccine Objections Were Religious

In Lavelle-Hayden v. Employment Dept., (OR App., Dec. 18, 2024), an Oregon state appellate court held that a hospital respiratory therapist who was denied a religious exemption from the hospital's Covid vaccine requirement should receive unemployment benefits. It held that the state Employment Appeals Board's (EAB) conclusion that the employee's objection to the Covid vaccine was secular or personal in nature, rather than religious, was not supported by substantial evidence. The court said in part:

First, the EAB appears to have overlooked the Supreme Court’s injunction that tribunals ordinarily must refrain from assessing the plausibility of a claim of religious belief, and to have read the record with unreasonable parsimony in view of that standard....

Second, the EAB drew unreasonable inferences from the fact that claimant’s church declined to provide her a letter in support of her exemption request. The EAB inferred that “the fact that claimant’s own religious leader refused to provide a letter weighs to some extent against finding that claimant’s opposition to taking the vaccine was rooted in religion.” The EAB also inferred that the fact “that the leader told claimant it might be ‘too political to get involved’ supports an inference that when claimant asked for the letter, the religious leader regarded claimant’s objection to receiving a vaccine to be based on her political beliefs, not religion.”... But that reasoning ... presupposes that one’s religious beliefs and political beliefs are necessarily mutually exclusive....

... [T]here is no basis on which to sustain the denial of benefits that is consistent with the evidence and Free Exercise Clause.

SNAP Work Requirement Did Not Violate Free Exercise Rights of Plaintiff's Adult Children

In Light v. Missouri Department of Social Services, (WD MO, Dec. 12, 2024), a Missouri federal district court dismissed a suit challenging the removal of plaintiff's four adult children from the SNAP (food stamp) program because they failed to comply the requirement to register for work and accept suitable employment offers.  According to the court:

Plaintiff alleges that participation of her four adult children in the SNAP work program is against their sincerely held beliefs under the Holy Bible New Testament KJV. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the work registration and training requirements would cause her children to give up their time to an employer placing them under ownership, and be placed in a position of a servant....

Plaintiff does not cite, and the Court has not found, any indication where the SNAP work and training requirements are not generally applicable. 

If a law is neutral and generally applicable courts will apply a rational basis review.... Courts uphold a valid and neutral law of general applicability if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose even if there is an incidental effect on religious belief.... SNAP was established to raise levels of nutrition among low-income households. To be eligible for the program both households and individuals had to adhere to certain eligibility requirements. This is a rationally related law to a legitimate government purpose of raising levels of nutrition among low-income households....

Supreme Court Grants Review of Wisconsin's Denial of Unemployment Comp Exemption for Catholic Charities

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor Review Commission, (Docket No. 24-154, certiorari granted 12/13/2024). (Order List). In the case, 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. (See prior posting.) Catholic Charities' petition for certiorari asks the Supreme Court to decide if Wisconsin violated the 1st Amendment's religion clauses when it held that Catholic Charities activities are primarily charitable and secular so that the statutory religious organization exemption is not available to it. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to the pleadings and briefs filed in the case.

Court Examines Sincerity and Religiosity of Vaccine Objections

Stynchula v. Inova Health Care Services, (ED VA, Nov. 19, 2024), is another of the dozens of cases working their way through the courts in which employees have asserted religious objections to Covid vaccine mandates, and their employers have refused to accommodate their objections on the ground that the employees' beliefs were either not religious or not sincerely held. Here the court examines objections asserted by two employees (Netko and Stynchula) and says in part:

Inova argues that Netko’s claim fails because his requests for religious exemptions from the COVID vaccine requirement did not assert beliefs that he sincerely held. The Court agrees....

... Netko’s practice with respect to medicines and vaccines developed using fetal cell lines “[was] inconsistent. He puts some medicines in his body, but not others” and thus he has severely contradicted his assertion that he could not receive a COVID-19 vaccine without compromising his religious beliefs.....  

Netko rejects this conclusion in several ways, none of which is compelling. He argues that Inova cannot show that he subjectively knew of the involvement of fetal cells in the medications and vaccinations that he received, when he received them, and because “sincerity is a subjective question pertaining to the party’s mental state,” if Netko received them ignorant of the fact of fetal cell involvement, “that is not behavior that is markedly inconsistent with his stated beliefs.” ... But there is no rule that a subjective mental state cannot be proven by objective circumstantial evidence....

Netko also contends that his failure to consistently raise fetal cell objections is of no consequence because “a finding of sincerity does not require perfect adherence to beliefs expressed by the [plaintiff], and even the most sincere practitioner may stray from time to time.”... But for a self-declared life-long adherent of a belief, like Netko, such a principle does not mean that sincerity is evident when he strays one hundred percent of the time until one day, he ostensibly decides to outwardly manifest his belief.

... Netko’s assertion that his religion prevented him from taking such vaccines “appears to have been newly adopted only in response to the demand that [he] take the COVID-19 vaccine,”... which is consistent with his general hostility to authority with respect to the COVID pandemic as a whole....

Inova asserts that Stynchula’s claim must fail because her vaccine exemption requests reflect beliefs that are secular, rather than religious, in nature....

Stynchula has not presented facts that show her vaccine-related beliefs are religious....   She states that her fetal cell line objections are grounded in her Catholic upbringing, whereas she joined the Church of Scientology in 2001.... And, the connection between her Scientological beliefs and her vaccination objections is undeveloped except to the extent that she objected to COVID vaccinations as “foreign substances” on the basis of the “axiom” of “Self Determinism” ...  and the idea that “the spirit alone may save or heal the body”... But these simply “seek[] a religious objection to any requirement with which [Stynchula] disagrees” and do not concern religious beliefs.... They are, rather, “isolated moral teaching[s]” in lieu of a “comprehensive system of beliefs about fundamental or ultimate matters.”...

Relatedly, Stynchula’s statements and conduct “only reinforce[] that her opposition stems from her medical beliefs.” ... She believes that her “body is a gift from God” and objects to vaccinations because “[she] do[es] not believe in injecting foreign substances unless there is a therapeutic reason”... and because they would “impact [her] relationship with God” and “would be a sin, as it goes against [her] deeply felt convictions and the answers [she] ha[s] received in prayer”....

... Stynchula does not review medication and vaccine information with an eye towards religious mandates or prohibitions. That is, her search is not to ensure that a specific substance is not present in her medications, or that certain religious procedures have been followed. She simply engages in a cost-benefit analysis of vaccines and medications rooted in her personal concerns over their safety and efficacy. Attaching a gloss of “general moral commandment[s],” such as beliefs in personal liberty or that the body is a temple, to these concerns cannot alone render them religious.

Jury Questions Remain in Suit by Casino Worker Fired for Refusing Covid Vaccine

In Brown v. MGM Grand Casino, ( ED MI, Nov. 18, 2024), a Michigan federal district court refused to grant summary judgment for either party in a suit by a former warehouse manager for MGM Grand Casino who was fired for refusing to comply with his employer's Covid vaccine mandate. Plaintiff, an Orthodox Apostolic Christian, had applied for a religious accommodation. It was refused. According to the court:

Defendant expressed doubt about the sincerity of Plaintiff’s religious belief.... It also expressed doubt about whether Plaintiff’s belief is religious in nature or purely secular.... Nevertheless, Defendant determined that accommodating Plaintiff would impose an undue burden on Defendant’s operations and denied his request on those grounds....

Defendant cites many non-controlling cases from other Circuits for the proposition that Plaintiff’s objection to the vaccination policy based on his opposition to abortion fails to demonstrate a religious belief, because he does not tie it to a wider religious observance, practice, or outlook....However, the Court is not persuaded by the underlying logic of these cases. Of course, a plaintiff claiming a failure to accommodate is required to demonstrate a connection between their belief and some “religious principle” they follow.... But courts “may not question the veracity of one’s religious beliefs.” ... Thus, a plaintiff need not cite specific tenets of his religion that forbid the contested employment policy or explain how those tenets forbid it. ...

While Plaintiff has demonstrated that his beliefs are religious, it is another question whether his beliefs are sincere....  [T]he factfinder need not take a plaintiff at his word.” ... Defendant has raised several reasons to question Plaintiff’s sincerity, such as the fact that his religious reasoning was not consistent throughout his accommodation request process or in his deposition, or the fact that he described medical reasons for wanting to avoid the vaccine....

Therefore, the Court concludes that material questions of fact remain as to whether Plaintiff has a sincerely held religious belief.

The court also concluded that the employer's undue hardship defense posed a jury question since, among other things, large numbers of workers under collective bargaining agreements were not vaccinated.

2nd Circuit Hears Oral Arguments from Amish Seeking Vaccination Exemptions

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Miller v. McDonald. In the case, 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 that the law was both neutral and generally applicable, and thus did not trigger heightened scrutiny. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the oral arguments.

2nd Circuit Remands Two Plaintiffs' Claims for Improper Denial of Religious Exemptions from Vaccine Mandate

New Yorkers for Religious Liberty v. City of New York, (2d Cir., Nov. 13, 2024), is a decision on appeals of two cases challenging denials of religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate imposed by the City of New York on public school teachers and staff.  While affirming the dismissal of many of the claims, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated dismissals of claims by two plaintiffs, Natasha Solon and Heather Clark, and remanded their cases to the district court. The court said in part:

If Solon’s initial, denied exemption application reflected her purely personal religious practices, then she has plausibly pleaded that she was improperly denied an accommodation because the old Arbitration Award Standards only allowed “exemption requests . . . for recognized and established religious organizations,” and did not honor exemptions for those whose “religious beliefs were merely personal.” ...  That could present a First Amendment problem.,,,

... [T]he documents Clark submitted ... describe a religious objection to the vaccine because it is a product of development using fetal cell lines and a “differing substance[]” that she may not ingest consistent with her faith....  Nevertheless, the district court dismissed Clark’s claim because “the [Citywide] panel found that her decision to not receive a vaccin[e] was not based on her religious belief, but rather, on nonreligious sources,” a conclusion the district court deemed “entirely proper . . . under Title VII.”... While such a conclusion could indeed be proper and constitutional if the Citywide Panel had a basis for reaching it, Clark’s allegations support the plausible inference that the Panel denied her request solely on the basis of its characterization of her religious objection as too idiosyncratic rather than as not sincerely held or non-religious in nature. 

Given this possibility, Clark has stated a cognizable as-applied claim at this stage.