Air Force Announces Portal To Process Religious Exemption Requests

The U.S. Air Force announced last week that it has developed a Portal to streamline requests for religious accommodation filed by Air Force, Space Force, and civilian employees, as well as appeals from denials of requests. According to an Air Force official:

The service has seen an exponential increase in religious accommodation requests, and the portal offers a systemic automated solution to ensure our servicemembers and civilians are assisted in the most expeditious manner going forward.

The Air Force has been embroiled in litigation filed by service members seeking religious exemptions from the military's COVID vaccine mandate. (See prior posting.)

9th Circuit Remands Employees' Challenge to Vaccine Exemption Denial

In Keene v. City and County of San Francisco, (9th Cir., May 15, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a decision from a California federal district court that denied preliminary relief to two city and county employees who were denied religious exemptions from CCSF's COVID vaccine mandate. The appeals court said in part:

The district court erroneously concluded that “[n]either Plaintiff has demonstrated that their religious beliefs are sincere or that those beliefs conflict with receiving the COVID-19 vaccine...."...

Beyond the district court’s factual error, its decision reflects a misunderstanding of Title VII law. A religious belief need not be consistent or rational to be protected under Title VII, and an assertion of a sincere religious belief is generally accepted.... 

The district court did not explain its conclusion that Appellants had not established sincerity beyond stating that there are “no grounds upon which to assert the mistaken conclusion that the FDA-approved vaccines . . . are . . . derived from murdered babies” and generally stating that personal preferences are not sincere religious beliefs. And CCSF offered no argument or evidence that Appellants’ beliefs are insincere. Absent any indication otherwise, it seems that the district court erroneously held that Appellants had not asserted sincere religious beliefs because their beliefs were not scientifically accurate. Remand is warranted for the district court to reevaluate Appellants’ claims applying the proper failure-to-accommodate inquiry....

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

EEOC Sues Hospital for Failing to Accommodate Religious Objection to Flu Shot

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit against Mercy Health St. Mary’s, a Grand Rapids, Michigan hospital for refusing to provide a religious accommodation to a job applicant and declining to hire him because of his religious beliefs. The release said in part:

... Mercy Health St. Mary’s violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by rescinding a job offer to an applicant who, for religious reasons, refused to receive a flu vaccine. Under Mercy Health’s influenza policy, employees are required to get a flu shot on an annual basis unless granted an exemption. While the applicant’s conditional job offer was pending, he applied for an exemption to the flu shot requirement based on his religious beliefs. Mercy Health arbitrarily denied his request and rescinded the job offer, without specifying to the applicant why or how his request for an exemption was deficient, the EEOC said.

Court Calls for Fuller Explanation for Denying Religious Exemption from COVOD Vaccine Mandate

 In Matter of Daniels v. New York City Police Dept., (Sup. Ct. NY County, April 24, 2023), a New York state trial court remanded to the City of New York Reasonable Accommodations Appeals Panel a claim for a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate brought by a NYPD officer assigned to the Emergency Services Unit.  The initial determination by the NYPD Equal Employment Opportunity Division was communicated through a pre-printed form with three boxes checked off indicating insufficient documentation and explanation as well as a lack of a history of vaccine refusal.  The Appeals Panel merely adopted the EEOD's reasoning.  In calling for a fuller explanation, the court said in part:

The NYPD EEOD's determination is a prime example of a determination that sets forth only the most perfunctory discussion of reasons for administrative action. The court has nothing before it that would enable it to analyze how the pre-printed "reasons" that were checked off on its determination letter related to or defeated the petitioner's request for accommodation. This type of conclusory administrative determination would require the court to speculate as to the thought processes of the person who checked the boxes, and provide its own reasons for those choices, an approach prohibited by longstanding rules of law.

Mississippi Must Grant Religious Exemptions To School Vaccination Requirements

 In Bosarge v. Edney, (SD MS, April 18, 2023), a Mississippi federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Mississippi's State Health Officer, as well as school officials named as defendants, to provide religious exemptions from the state's mandatory vaccination requirements for school children. The court said in part:

The face of the statute allows for medical exemptions but affords no exemption for religious beliefs, and the Complaint alleges that this constitutes “an unconstitutional value judgment that secular (i.e., medical) motivations for opting out of compulsory immunization are permitted, but that religious motivations are not.”....

The Attorney General’s argument is essentially that the Compulsory Vaccination Law does not violate the Free Exercise Clause because the [Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act] MRFRA saves it.... Taking this argument to its logical conclusion as to Plaintiffs’ facial challenge, no Mississippi statute could ever violate the Free Exercise Clause on its face because the more general, non-specific MRFRA applies to all State laws and operates to cure any law that would otherwise be deemed to violate the Free Exercise Clause.... However, at least in this case, the Court is not persuaded that the MRFRA can be read in this fashion with respect to Plaintiffs’ facial challenge.

RNS reports on the decision.

Dismissal Recommended in Healthcare Worker's Claim for Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate

In Bolonchuk v. Cherry Creek Nursing Center/ Nexion Health, (D CO, April 12, 2023), a Colorado federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a suit by a former nursing home healthcare employee whose 18-year long employment was terminated after she refused on religious grounds to comply with her employer's Covid vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. A state regulation required the vaccine mandate. The court rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment claim because defendant was not alleged to be a state actor.  It also rejected her claim that Title VII required a religious accommodation, saying in part:

Defendant would have had to violate a state law (i.e., the regulation mandate) in order to accommodate Plaintiff, clearly establishing an undue hardship.

11th Circuit: Jewish Student's Masking Objections Do Not Get 1st Amendment Protection

 In Zinman v. Nova Southeastern University, Inc., (11th Cir., March 29, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Florida federal district court's dismissal of a suit by a Jewish law student challenging on religious grounds his school's COVID mask mandates. The court said in part:

None of Zinman’s claims are viable. His application for injunctive relief is moot as to all of the defendants. Zinman’s damages claims fare no better. His Title II claim fails because damages are not available under Title II of the Civil Rights Act. His Title VI claim fails because the Second Amended Complaint does not contain any factual allegations -- as it must -- from which we could infer that any of the masking decisions NSU made were animated by discriminatory intent. And his § 1983 claims fail because Zinman has not plausibly alleged that any of his constitutional rights were violated.....

Zinman has failed to state a claim for a free exercise violation arising under the First Amendment because Zinman does not explain why the mask mandates were not neutral and generally applicable. Neutral rules of general application are subject only to rational basis review.... The adoption of mask mandates easily passed this test.... 

Zinman has also failed to state a claim for a free speech violation because wearing a mask is not speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.... 

The likelihood is exceedingly remote and attenuated that a reasonable passerby observing Zinman without a mask on would interpret his unmasked status as an attempt to convey some sort of message. There are so many more probable explanations for a person’s decision to go unmasked that have nothing to do with conveying any sort of message -- political, religious, or otherwise. Thus, for example, a person may not be masked for medical reasons, or because he left his mask at home, or perhaps just on account of a personal dislike for masking.

NYPD Administrative Review of Religious Exemption Claim Was Arbitrary

In Matter of Quagliata v New York City Police Department, (NY County Sup. Ct., March 17, 2023), a New York state trial court remanded a case in which an administrative Panel refused to grant an NYPD police officer a religious exemption from New York City's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Inasmuch as the Panel’s determination sets forth absolutely no rationale whatsoever for its conclusions, other than to incorporate the conclusory reasons articulated by the NYPD EEOD, the Panel’s determination is facially arbitrary and capricious, and may be annulled on that ground alone....

Even were the court directly to review the NYPD EEOD’s initial determination, it nonetheless would be constrained to conclude that the initial determination also was arbitrary and capricious. The NYPD EEOD’s determination is a prime example of a determination that sets forth only the most perfunctory discussion of reasons for administrative action....

The court’s conclusion in this regard should not be construed as a ruling that, had the petitioner’s stated reasons for his request for an exemption, and his discussion of religious doctrine, properly been analyzed..., the petitioner’s contentions would have constituted a proper basis for an exemption... 

With respect to ... violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and discrimination in employment..., the petitioner has not established either that the City’s vaccine mandate or the termination of his own employment were premised upon religion, as he has not demonstrated that his conclusions about sin, the use of embryonic stem cells in the development and improvement of various vaccinations and medications, and the alleged proscription of desecrating the human body via any genetic manipulation that mRNA vaccinations might generate, are established Catholic doctrine, or merely his personal interpretation of his obligations as a practicing Catholic.

Suit Challenges Connecticut's Elimination of Religious Exemption from School Vaccination Requirement

Suit was filed last week in a Connecticut federal district court by a Christian preschool and the church that sponsors it challenging Connecticut's removal of religious exemptions from its statute requiring various vaccinations for preschool children. The complaint (full text) in Milford Christian Church v. Russell-Tucker, (D CT, filed 3/6/2023) alleges that the requirement violates plaintiffs' free exercise, free speech, freedom of association, equal protection, and child rearing rights. It alleges in part:

63. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-204a denies a generally available benefit – education– to children if their parents do not abandon their religious beliefs while affording the same benefit to parents and children who assert a medical exemption.

64. Adding insult to injury, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-204a prevents parents from seeking alternative education options for their children by applying the same mandate to private schools, daycares, and pre-schools, including those operated by churches and religious organizations.

65. In other words, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-204a forces parents to either renounce their religious beliefs and vaccinate their children or homeschool their children– something that many parents cannot do – thus depriving them any educational opportunities.

Christian Post reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit: Employees Have No Free Exercise Claim Against Company That Denied Them a Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate

In Ciraci v. J.M. Smucker Company, (6th Cir., March 14, 2023), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that employees of a company that sells food products to the federal government may not assert a 1st Amendment free-exercise claim against the company for denying them a religious exemption from a COVID vaccine mandate imposed by the company after the federal government required government contractors to do so. The court said in part:

Constitutional guarantees conventionally apply only to entities that exercise sovereign power, such as federal, state, or local governments.... Smucker’s may be a big company. But it is not a sovereign. Even so, did Smucker’s become a federal actor—did it exercise sovereign power?—for purposes of this free-exercise claim when it sold products to the federal government and when it imposed the vaccine mandate because the federal government required it to do so as a federal contractor? No, as the district court correctly held. We affirm....

Smucker’s does not perform a traditional, exclusive public function; it has not acted jointly with the government or entwined itself with it; and the government did not compel it to deny anyone an exemption. That Smucker’s acted in compliance with a federal law and that Smucker’s served as a federal contractor—the only facts alleged in the claimants’ complaint—do not by themselves make the company a government actor.

The court went on to suggest that even if the company were a state actor, there may be no cause of action against them:

To the extent the claimants seek damages directly under the First Amendment against a federal official, they must rely on the kind of implied cause of action created by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). But extending Bivens is “disfavored” ...

That leaves claimants’ demands for a declaratory judgment, reinstatement, and other equitable relief. In equity, it is true, claimants sometimes may “sue to enjoin unconstitutional actions by state and federal officers” even in the absence of a statutory cause of action.... But today’s claimants seek more than a prohibitory injunction. They seek reinstatement and other affirmative relief. It is not clear whether, as a matter of historical equitable practice, we may infer, imply, or create a cause of action for such relief. But because the parties have not briefed or argued these points and because they do not go to our jurisdiction, we need not decide them today.

Rastafarian Police Officer's Free Exercise Claim May Move Ahead

In Taylor v. City of New Haven, (D CT, March 10, 2023), a Rastafarian police officer sued claiming religious and disability discrimination after being denied an exemption from the police department's grooming policy. While dismissing a half dozen of plaintiff's claims largely on procedural and jurisdictional grounds, the court permitted him to move ahead with his First Amendment free exercise claim for damages, saying in part:

The plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to show that the general order at issue burdened his religious conduct..., and that the order lacked general applicability, both because it invited individualized exemptions... and because the City of New Haven permitted secular conduct contrary to the general order.... Thus, the plaintiff has alleged facts which, if true, demonstrate that the general order is subject to strict scrutiny and that the government can achieve its interests in a manner that does not burden religion. Consequently, for purposes of this stage of the case, the plaintiff has shown that he had a right protected by the First Amendment.

Minnesota Appeals Court Decides When Religious Reasons for Vaccine Refusal Were Proven

In three cases decided within days of each other, the Minnesota Court of Appeals wrestled with the question of whether employees' claims of religious objections to the COVID vaccine were credible.  At issue in each case was the former employee's entitlement to unemployment benefits.  If the religious claim was legitimate, vaccine refusal would not constitute disqualifying employment misconduct.

In Washa v. Actalent Scientific, LLC, (MN App, Feb. 22, 2023), the court reversed the decision of an unemployment law judge. It found that substantial evidence did not support the unemployment-law judge's finding that a medical lab technician's refusal was based on safety concerns rather than religious beliefs.  The technician had testified that he did not want to be defiled so that God could enter and he could avoid going to Hell.

In Quarnstrom v. Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, (MN App., Feb. 22, 2023), the court remanded the case, finding that the unemployment-law judge had used the wrong standard in deciding whether an insurance adjustor's refusal was personal rather than religious. The court said in part:

The ULJ reasoned that Quarnstrom’s reasons for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine were not based on sincerely held religious beliefs because she did not cite to particular passages in the Bible, had not been instructed by a religious advisor to refuse the vaccine, and conceded that other members of her congregation could, consistent with their faith, choose to get a vaccine. But “the guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect.”...

In McConnell v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, (MN App, Feb. 24, 2023), the court in a 2-1 decision held that the record did not support the unemployment-law judge's conclusion that vaccine refusal by an FRB employee was based on secular, not religious, reasons.  The majority said in part:

Although McConnell testified to concerns regarding the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, she repeatedly tied those concerns back to her faith.... [S]he testified that, although she believes in some medical interventions, she “prayerfully consider[s] things.” The ULJ found McConnell’s testimony regarding safety concerns credible and rejected her testimony regarding her religious beliefs as not credible.... The ULJ offered no reason for crediting only part of McConnell’s testimony, and we can discern none.

Judge Segal dissented, saying in part:

I would conclude that, although it implicates constitutional rights, this appeal, like many others, turns on a credibility determination that is supported by the record. As such, I believe that precedent requires that we defer to the ULJ’s credibility determination.

Poll Worker Loses Free Exercise Challenge to Vaccine Mandate

In Wolfe v. Logan, (CD CA, Jan 25, 2023), a California federal district court in an In Chambers proceeding granted Los Angeles County officials' motion to dismiss numerous challenges by plaintiff to the county's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for poll workers. Rejecting plaintiff's Free Exercise challenge, the court said in part:

The policy, as alleged by Wolfe, is neutral and generally applicable. It does not directly target religious expression; the burden that a vaccination requirement places on religious practice is incidental. Wolfe alleges that the vaccination requirement is "without exception."... Because there are no exceptions, there is no individualized exemption process that might invite religious discrimination. Moreover, the vaccine requirement makes no distinction between secular or religious objections people might have to the vaccine; everyone is required to get one if they wish to act as a poll worker.... The policy could hardly be more neutral and generally applicable, and it is therefore not subject to strict scrutiny.

Department of Labor Rescinds Trump Administration Rule Broadening Religious Exemptions from Non-Discrimination Rules

The Department of Labor published in today's Federal Register a release (full text) rescinding a Trump Administration rule that defined expansively the religious exemption in the agency's rules imposing anti-discrimination requirements on government contractors and subcontractors. According to DOL:

 [T]he 2020 rule increased confusion and uncertainty about the religious exemption, largely because it departed from and questioned longstanding Title VII precedents..... 

Commenters who supported rescission overwhelmingly agreed that the 2020 preamble raised a serious risk that the rule would be implemented to permit contractors to discriminate against individuals based on protected classes other than a preference for persons of a particular religion.....

OFCCP emphasizes that, absent strong evidence of insincerity, OFCCP would accept a religious organization’s own assertions regarding doctrinal questions. However, OFCCP believes it is important to clarify that it is not appropriate to construe the Executive Order 11246 religious exemption to permit a qualifying religious organization to discriminate against employees on the basis of any protected characteristics other than religion.

Bloomberg Law reports on the rule change, (See prior related posting.)

Nurse Denied Religious Exemption From Vaccine Mandate Loses Title VII and Free Exercise Challenges

In Riley v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., (SD NY, Feb. 17, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed without prejudice a suit by a Christian nurse in a hospital's surgical unit who claimed that denying her a religious exemption from the hospital's COVID vaccine mandate violated her rights under Title VII and the Free Exercise Clause. The court said in part:

Title VII cannot be used to require employers to break the law..... When the defendant implemented its vaccine mandate, [New York State Department of Health Rule] Section 2.61, a binding state regulation, required the defendant to “continuously require personnel” like the plaintiff “to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, absent receipt of” a medical exemption. 10 N.Y.C.C.R. § 2.61(c)....

The plaintiff does not argue that the defendant’s vaccine mandate was not generally applicable. She argues only that the mandate “was not neutral and was and is hostile to the religious beliefs of the plaintiff, as it presupposed the illegitimacy of her religious beliefs and practices.”... An enactment violates the neutrality principle if it “explicitly singles out a religious practice” or “targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment.”... The plaintiff pleads no facts suggesting that the defendant’s mandate is guilty of either. To the extent the plaintiff alleges that the mandate’s lack of a religious exception alone makes it non-neutral, We The Patriots forecloses that argument. See 17 F.4th at 282....

Student Loses Free Exercise Challenge To University's COVID Vaccine Mandate

In Collins v. City University of New York, (SD NY, Feb. 8, 2023), a New York federal district court rejected a student's claims that his free exercise, equal protection and procedural due process rights were violated when he was denied a religious exemption from City University's COVID vaccine mandate.  In rejecting the student's free exercise claim, the court said in part:

As established by recent Second Circuit case law, the Vaccination Policy is neutral, generally applicable, and easily passes rational basis review.

2nd Circuit Hears Arguments on Religious Objections to NYC Employee Vaccine Mandate

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments yesterday in New Yorkers For Religious Liberty, Inc. v. The City of New York. (Mp3 audio of full oral arguments.) At issue are 1st and 14th Amendment challenges to New York City's public employee COVID vaccine mandate by employees with religious objections to the vaccines. (See prior posting). ADF has links to some of the pleadings filed in the case.

5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Navy SEAL's Suit Seeking COVID Vaccine Exemption

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday heard oral arguments in U.S. Navy SEAL's 1-26 v. Biden, (Docket No. 22-10077, argued 2/6/2022) (audio recording of full oral arguments). In the case, a Texas federal district court issued preliminary injunctions barring the U.S. Navy from imposing its COVID-19 vaccine mandate on Navy service members who sought religious exemptions from the requirement. (See prior postings 1 and 2). Politico reports on the oral arguments.

HHS Proposes Repeal of Exemption from Contraceptive Mandate for Entities with Nonreligious Moral Objections

 Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services along with several other federal agencies filed a 147-page release (full text) proposing rule changes to the Trump Administration's exemptive rules under the Affordable Care Act for employers and universities with objections to furnishing employees and students coverage for contraceptive services. The proposed rule changes would eliminate the current exemption for employers and schools that have moral, as opposed to religious objections. The new rules would retain the exemption for employers and universities with religious objections.  However, under new arrangements, their employees and students could, in addition to existing options, obtain contraceptive services through an individual contraceptive arrangement with another provider, and without any involvement on the part of the employer or university with religious objections. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a press release explaining the proposed rules, and CNN reports on the proposals.

Federal Reserve Bank Can Be Sued Under Both Title VII and RFRA

In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, (SD NY, Jan. 18, 2023), a New York federal district court held that two former employees of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York may bring Title VII as well as RFRA and Free Exercise claims against FRBNY for denying them a religious exemption from the Bank's COVID vaccine mandate. It distinguished cases holding that other governmental entities can be sued only under Title VII. It held however that New York City and New York state anti-discrimination laws are pre-empted by federal law giving NYFRB the power to dismiss employees.