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.

Appeals Court Upholds Denial of Unemployment Benefits To Health Care Worker Who Was Denied Religious Exemption From Vaccine Mandate

In Cyriaque v. Director- Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (OH App., Nov. 22, 2023), an Ohio state appellate court upheld the denial of unemployment benefits to a clinical trainer at a community health center who was denied a religious exemption from a federal Covid vaccine mandate.  Her employment was terminated when she continued to refuse the vaccine.  In upholding the denial of benefits, the appeals court said in part:

It was, of course, the hearing officer’s province to assess the credibility of Cyriaque’s assertion that the exemption request was based upon her sincere religious opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines. In coming to this decisive determination, the hearing officer was free to believe all, some, or none of Cyriaque’s testimony. As noted, Cyriaque’s exemption statement submitted to Community Health did not assert that her religious opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines was based upon the use of aborted fetal cells in the development of the vaccines. In contrast, Cyriaque’s hearing testimony and other evidence exclusively focused upon the use of aborted fetal cells being used in the development of the vaccines as the basis for the requested exemption. This contrast between Cyriaque’s statement provided to Community Health and her hearing testimony provided support for the hearing officer’s finding that Cyriaque’s exemption request was not premised upon her sincere religious opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines. Given this, we cannot conclude the commission’s decision was unlawful because it violated Cyriaque’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause, that the decision was unreasonable, or that the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

No Damages Under Illinois RFRA for Wedding Cancelled Over Covid Vaccine Mandate

In Schneider v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, Nov. 20, 2023), an Illinois federal district court dismissed a damage action brought under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act by a couple who cancelled their wedding at the Drake Hotel, losing their deposit, when the city of Chicago required proof of COVID vaccination for gatherings in large areas such as hotels and banquet halls. The couple had religious objections to receiving vaccines. The court held that because the city's Health Order included a religious exemption, plaintiffs had not alleged that the Order substantially burdened their religious practice or beliefs.  The couple contended that there was no ascertainable way for them to obtain a religious exemption from the city. The court responded:

[P]laintiffs point to nothing in their complaint or the health order itself to support a reasonable inference that the City of Chicago would not provide a religious exemption or that religious exemptions were impossible to receive. Their notion of impossibility amounts to an unreasonable interpretation of the Order—that the absence of more specific directions on how to obtain an exemption meant that no exemption was obtainable....

[A]fter two calls to the Corporation Counsel went unanswered, the plaintiffs summarily concluded that obtaining a religious exemption in time for their February 2022 wedding was “impossible.”... [T]his conclusion is not entitled to the assumption of truth....

Even if plaintiffs had been able to state a claim for violation of the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, their complaint only requests money damages and those damages are prohibited by the Illinois Tort Immunity Act.... . It is likely that the Illinois Supreme Court would hold that the ITIA protects local governments from damages claims under IRFRA.

RFRA and Title VII Claims for Refusing Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate Can Proceed

In Snyder v. Chicago Transit Authority, (ND IL,  Nov. 6, 2023), an Illinois federal district court allowed plaintiff, who was denied a religious exemption from his former employer's Covid vaccine mandate, to move ahead with his claims under Title VII and under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court however dismissed seven other claims brought under a number of other statutory and regulatory provisions.

Employees' Objections to Covid Vaccine Were Not Religious

In Foshee v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, (D MD, Oct. 17, 2023), a Maryland federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim by two employees who were denied a religious exemption from a company's Covid vaccine mandate, finding that their objections were not religious in nature. The court said in part:

Both Foshee and Pivar made similar assertions – that they are guided in their important decisions by God or the Holy Spirit, respectively, that they personally do not see the value in and are concerned about the risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, and that they have not felt God or the Holy Spirit calling them to disregard their consciences and get the vaccine....

Foshee’s position, that God gave him a conscience that tells him what to do, similarly amounts to a “blanket privilege.” The same conscience-based justification could be used to evade any job requirement that Foshee disagreed with. Pivar’s position that he listens to the guidance of the Holy Spirit which guides him in his difficult decisions is in the same vein....

Of course, harboring secular reasons alongside religious reasons does not automatically disqualify the religious beliefs, but in this circumstance, the reasons are inextricably intertwined in a way that dilutes the religious nature. For example, plaintiffs do not want to take the vaccines, therefore their consciences tell them not to do it, and they believe it is God’s will or in accord with the Holy Spirit that they follow their consciences. That reasoning is not subject to any principled limitation in its scope. Their beliefs thus confer the type of unverifiable “blanket privilege” that courts cannot permit to be couched as religious in nature.

1st Circuit Remands Covid Vaccine Religious Exemption Case

In Brox v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority, (1st Cir., Oct. 6, 2023), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed in part and vacated in part a trial court's refusal to require that plaintiffs be given a religious exemption from a state agency's Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

[T]he appellants argue that the Policy, as administered, provides medical exemptions that permit unvaccinated employees to work "in close contact with colleagues, despite the purported direct threat . . . [their] unvaccinated status poses to them" but not religious exemptions that would permit unvaccinated employees to do the same even though their unvaccinated status poses no greater threat. And, according to the appellants, the Policy, as administered, is therefore not generally applicable -- and thus is subject to strict scrutiny -- because it "prohibits religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that undermines the government's asserted interests in a similar way"....

The appellees do argue that the Policy is generally applicable -- and so not subject to strict scrutiny -- for reasons having to do with the differing statutory liability that the Authority would face in denying requests for exemption that are medically rather than religiously based. The appellees assert in that regard that an employer may show that an accommodation for religious practice would constitute an "undue hardship" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... more easily than an employer may show that an accommodation for a disability would constitute an undue hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act.... 

But even if we were to accept the appellees' contention about the greater leeway that an employer has under Title VII,.., the appellees do not develop any argument as to why we must conclude that, as a matter of law, the greater federal statutory liability that an employer faces for denying a medical exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate than for denying a religious exemption from one suffices in and of itself to show that, for free exercise purposes, the former exemption may be granted and the latter exemption may be denied to employees who pose comparable risks of spreading the virus without thereby rendering the mandate not generally applicable and so subject to strict scrutiny....

We thus do not see how we may rely on this ground to affirm the District Court's "likelihood of success" ruling as to the appellants' free exercise claim....

Thus, we vacate the District Court's ruling with respect to its denial of the requested injunctive relief on the appellants' free exercise claim. We leave it to the parties and to the District Court on remand, therefore, to consider the appellants' request for that relief under the applicable legal framework that we have set forth....

Employees Failed to Show Sincere Religious Beliefs for Vaccine Exemptions

In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, (SD NY, Sept. 25, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed RFRA, Title VII and First Amendment claims by two Federal Reserve Bank employees who were denied religious exemptions from the FRB's Covid vaccine mandate.  The court, in a 52-page opinion, concluded that neither Lori Gardner-Alfred nor Jeanette Diaz had demonstrated that their objections to the vaccine were based on sincere religious beliefs. The court said in part:

Gardner-Alfred claims to be a member of the Temple of Healing Spirit, which is a belief system that she describes as “oppos[ing] the invasive techniques of traditional Western medicine.” ...

Defendant argues that no reasonable jury could find that Gardner-Alfred’s objections to the vaccine were grounded in sincerely held religious beliefs.,,,  Defendant argues that there is no evidence Gardner-Alfred enjoyed any relationship with the Temple of Healing Spirit beyond paying for a vaccination exemption package and that her medical history, both before and after she made her request for a religious accommodation, is inconsistent with her alleged religious beliefs....

 No reasonable jury thus would be able to conclude that her claimed religious beliefs were anything other than contrived....

... [T]here is undisputed evidence that Diaz would have a motive to “fraudulently hid[e] secular interests behind a veil of religious doctrine.”... Diaz submitted her accommodation request days after attending a secular anti-vaccination webinar featuring materials entitled “White Paper—Experimental Covid Vaccines,” and “Review of Ivermectin Efficacy.”...  [S]he subscribed to at least eight newsletters, which sent her several hundred emails, from sources opposing the vaccine on secular grounds.... 

There also is evidence of Diaz acting in a manner inconsistent with her claimed religious views.... Diaz concedes that she has on many occasions taken medications and received injections without first checking whether they contain or were made or manufactured with aborted fetal cell lines...

Diaz further does not dispute that the views that she now claims to hold are different from those held by the church of which she claims to be a member..... 

... She bases her objection on the letter she received from the Colorado Catholic Conference, an organization with which she had no prior affiliation and has no current affiliation.... The letter is available for download from the internet from anyone who seeks it....

New Decisions on Covid Vaccine Religious Objection Claims

Decisions have been handed down in the past few days in several cases in which employees who were denied a religious exemption or accommodation from an employer's Covid vaccine mandate have sued:

In Dicapua v. City of New York, (Richmond Cty. NY Sup. Ct., Sept 18, 2923), 16 employees of the Department of Education brought suit.  A New York state trial court held that ten of the employees should have been granted a religious exemption, saying in part:

This Court sees no rational basis for not allowing unvaccinated classroom teachers in amongst an admitted population of primarily unvaccinated students.

In Mora v. New York State Unified Court System, (SD NY, Sept. 19, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit by a Poughkeepsie City Court Judge, saying in part:

Here, the Vaccine Mandate has been repealed, and plaintiff has been reinstated to his full in-person duties. Therefore, plaintiff has not alleged an ongoing violation of federal law, or a need for prospective relief...

Damage claims were  dismissed in part on the basis of 11th Amendment immunity and in part because Title VII does not apply to government appointees on the policymaking level. His Free Exercise claim was denied because the vaccine mandate was a neutral, generally applicable rule. Retaliation and equal protection claims were also rejected.

In Trusov v. Oregon Health & Science University, (D OR, Sept. 20, 2023), an Oregon federal district court dismissed some of the claims brought by a registered nurse who was denied a religious accommodation, and deferred consideration of another of her claims.  The court said in part:

Regarding Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s First Claim, alleging religious discrimination in employment, the Court finds that OHSU’s arguments about undue hardship must await a motion for summary judgment, at which time the Court may consider matters outside the pleadings and, if necessary, motions to exclude expert testimony. Regarding Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s second claim brought under § 1983 against the individual Defendants, the Court dismisses that claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Regarding, Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s request for prospective declaratory relief, the Court dismisses that request for lack of standing.

In Mathisen v. Oregon Health & Science University, (D OR, Sept. 19, 2023), an Oregon federal district court rejected claims brought by a research laboratory manager who was denied a religious exemption as well as a medical exemption. The court said in part:

In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Title VII claim fails because OHSU offered to accommodate Plaintiff’s religious beliefs by offering an accommodation—masking—to which Plaintiff has alleged no objection based on religion....

Plaintiff’s assertion that masking would not promote safety is a secular objection, not a religious one. That objection, therefore, does not establish that the offered accommodation to her religious objection was not reasonable for purposes of her claim of religious discrimination.

Other of Plaintiff's claims were dismissed on qualified immunity and standing grounds.

EEOC Sues Over Refusal of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate For Remote-Working Emloyee

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit against the healthcare provider United Healthcare Services for refusing to grant a religious exemption from the company's Covid vaccine mandate to an employee whose duties were performed entirely remotely. The EEOC said in part:

“Neither healthcare providers nor COVID-19 vaccination requirements are excepted from Title VII’s protections against religious discrimination.”

Teachers Get Religious Exemption from School Policy Barring Disclosure to Parents of Gender Identity Changes

In Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, Sept. 14, 2023), a California federal district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Escondido Union School District from taking any adverse employment action against two teachers who have religious objections to the school district's policy of faculty confidentiality when communicating with parents about a student's change in gender identity. The court said in part:

The result of the new EUSD policy is that a teacher ordinarily may not disclose to a parent the fact that a student identifies as a new gender, or wants to be addressed by a new name or new pronouns during the school day – names, genders, or pronouns that are different from the birth name and birth gender of the student. Under the policy at issue, accurate communication with parents is permitted only if the child first gives its consent to the school....

The plaintiffs in this action are two experienced, well-qualified, teachers. The teachers maintain sincere religious beliefs that communications with a parent about a student should be accurate; communications should not be calculated to deceive or mislead a student’s parent....

... Mirabelli believes that the relationship between parents and children is an inherently sacred and life-long bond, ordained by God, in which the parents have the ultimate right and responsibility to care for and guide their children..... In a similar vein, West believes that the relationship between parents and their child is created by God with the intent that the parents have the ultimate responsibility to raise and guide their child. Both Mirabelli and West believe that God forbids lying and deceit...

EUSD contends that the government purpose of protecting gender diverse students from (an undefined) harm is a compelling governmental interest and the policy of non-disclosure to parents is narrowly tailored.... This argument is unconvincing. First, both the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court have found overly broad formulations of compelling government interests unavailing.... Second, keeping parents uninformed and unaware of significant events that beg for medical and psychological experts to evaluate a child, like hiding a gym student’s soccer concussion, is precisely the type of inaction that is likely to cause greater harm and is not narrowly tailored. ....

In the end, Mirabelli and West face an unlawful choice along the lines of: “lose your faith and keep your job, or keep your faith and lose your job.”... The only meaningful justification the District offers for its insistence that the plaintiffs not reveal to parents gender information about their own children rests on a mistaken view that the District bears a duty to place a child’s right to privacy above, and in derogation of, the rights of a child’s parents....

[Thanks to Jeffrey Trissell for the lead.]

Religious Organization Lacks Standing to Challenge Interpretation of State Anti-Discrimination law

In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Wash. v. Ferguson, (ED WA, Sept. 1, 2023), a Washington federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Washington Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's anti-discrimination law. The state Supreme Court in a prior case interpreted the statute's exemption for non-profit religious organizations to be limited to situations covered by the ministerial exemption doctrine.  In this case, plaintiff that operates a homeless shelter and thrift store and also provides social services sought a declaration that religious organizations have a constitutional right to hire, even in non-ministerial positions, only those who agree with its religious beliefs and who will comply with its religious tenets and behavior requirements. In dismissing the lawsuit, the court found that there was no credible threat of enforcement against plaintiff, and that this suit was a disguised attempt to appeal a Washington Supreme Court decision in violation of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.

Court OK's Denial of Unemployment Benefits for Religious Objector to Covid Vaccine Mandate

In In re Parks v. Commissioner of Labor, (NY App., Aug. 31, 2023), a New York state appellate court affirmed the decision of the state Unemployment Insurance Appeal Bord denying unemployment compensation to a medical center security guard who was fired for refusing to comply with a Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Although claimant refused to comply with the mandate for personal reasons that he characterized as based upon his religious beliefs, the state mandate did not authorize a religious exemption. Contrary to claimant's contention that the vaccine mandate violates his First Amendment religious and other constitutional rights, religious beliefs do not excuse compliance with a valid, religion-neutral law of general applicability that prohibits conduct that the state is free to regulate, as the Board recognized.... When employment is terminated as a consequence of the failure to comply with such a law, including noncompliance with a religious motivation, the First Amendment does not prohibit the denial of unemployment insurance benefits based upon that noncompliance where, as here, the mandate has a rational public-health basis and is justified by a compelling government interest....

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Title VII Claim for Denying Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate Moves Ahead

In MacDonald v. Oregon Health & Science University, (D OR, Aug, 28, 2023), an Oregon federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII claim by a former nurse in a hospital's Mother and Baby Unit who was denied a religious exemption from the hospital's Covid vaccine mandate. The hospital argued that because plaintiff's job duties required her to interact with vulnerable pregnant mothers and newborn babies, any accommodation would pose an "undue hardship" on the hospital.  The court pointed out that on a motion to dismiss, unlike on a motion for summary judgment, the court is generally not permitted to consider evidence outside of the pleadings, saying in part:

Accordingly, this Court finds that, at this stage, it is unable to properly consider the extrinsic evidence on which Defendants rely to show either that there were no other viable accommodations to Plaintiff’s vaccination, or that any accommodations would have created an undue hardship consistent with Groff....

... [O]n a fuller evidentiary record, Defendants may be able to satisfy their burden to show that any accommodation would indeed have resulted in a substantial cost to OHSU. But Defendants have not met that burden at this stage.

The court however dismissed plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claim, concluding that defendants had qualified immunity.