Cert. Denied Over Dissent of 3 Justices in Covid Vaccine Mandate Controversy

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in Doe v. Hochul , (Docket No. 24-1015, certiorari denied 6/29/2026) over a dissenting opinion by Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. At issue in the case was New York's refusal to grant state healthcare workers a religious exemption from the state's Covid vaccine mandate. Justice Gorsuch dissenting said in part:

... [T]he Court of Appeals did not assess the reasonableness of the plaintiffs’ requested accommodations.  In fact, the court took as given that the plaintiffs had “plausibly alleged a prima facie case of Title VII religious discrimination.” ... Still, the court held, the defendants had presented a successful “undue hardship” defense as a matter of law....  More specifically, the court reasoned that granting the plaintiffs’ requested religious accommodations would have imposed an “undue hardship” on their employers because it “would have required the [employers] to violate the state [vaccine] regulation” and “subjected the [employers] to financial penalties or a suspension or revocation of their operating licenses.”... 

Soon after it decided this case, the Second Circuit reiterated its understanding of Title VII’s undue hardship defense, holding that “an accommodation that would require an employer to violate” a state law necessarily “imposes an undue hardship”—and does so even when the state law is “unconstitutional as applied” to the plaintiff....

... [I]t seems to me that state law cannot control whether an employer faces an “undue hardship” for purposes of federal antidiscrimination laws, just like it cannot conclusively resolve what constitutes a “reasonable accommodation”.... To hold otherwise would appear to leave States free to strip individuals of the protections guaranteed by so many federal civil rights statutes....

9th Circuit: Question of Fact Remains on Whether Airline Flight Attendants Were Fired Because of Their Religious Beliefs

In Brown v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., (9th Cir., June 24, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is a genuine dispute of material fact that precludes dismissing before trial a suit by two Alaska Airlines flight attendants (Brown and Smith) who were fired after they posted comments on an internal intranet communications network opposing the Airline's support for the proposed federal Equality Act. That proposed Act protected LGBTQ+ rights. At issue is whether the firings were because of the flight attendants' religious beliefs or instead because their comments violated the company’s anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies. The court said in part:

... [T]he issue is not whether Alaska can punish employees who engage in discrimination and harassment (it can).  The issue here is instead a factual one of whether Brown was in fact fired for engaging in discrimination or harassment, or whether Alaska instead used the cover of its employee policies to fire Brown because of her religious beliefs.  Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Brown, there is a genuine dispute of material fact on this point, and so summary judgment for Alaska was improper....

Under our cases, a union under Title VII “has an affirmative obligation to oppose employment discrimination against its members,” and if the union instead “acquiesce[s] or join[s] in the Company’s discrimination practices, it too is liable to the injured employees.”

The record raises factual questions about whether AFA’s representation of Brown was colored by potential disagreement with her religious views....

Judge Christen dissented in part, saying in part:

I dissent from my colleagues’ decision to reverse the district court’s entry of summary judgment on Lacey Smith’s claims against Alaska because I do not agree that Smith demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Alaska terminated her because of her religion...

During Alaska’s investigation, Smith insisted that she was merely posing a philosophical question rather than asserting to the investigators that her Christian beliefs caused her to conclude that the Equality Act was immoral.  The majority posits that “‘morality’ is often associated with religious beliefs,” but references to morality are not inherently religious....

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

U.S. and Florida Launch Investigations of Religious Discrimination by Major League Baseball

Major League Baseball's apparent selective enforcement of its rules regarding players' uniforms has led to religious discrimination investigations by both the EEOC at the behest of the Department of Justice and by Florida's Attorney General.  A June 18 letter (full text) from the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon to Commissioner of Baseball Robert Manfred says in part:

According to media reports, Major League Baseball ("MLB") has warned and/or is considering disciplining three players on the San Francisco Giants who refused to participate in "Pride Night." The three players expressed their opposition to MLB's pro-Pride orthodoxy by inscribing Bible verses on their rainbow-colored hats....

MLB has asserted that its warning to the Giants players "had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the message" and that it merely is enforcing a policy that prohibits writing on uniforms. Yet MLB has allowed players to wear uniform patches reading "Black Lives Matter."  This double standard-- under which players may not inscribe Bible verses on hats for one game only but may wear "Black Lives Matter" patches for one game only-- calls MLB's true motives into question and raises serious concerns about MLB's compliance with Title VII....

I have referred this matter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for further investigation.

A June 19 press release from Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier says that his office has sent a letter and issued an investigative subpoena to MLB, indicating that Florida is also launching a formal probe into whether MLB is engaging in religious discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act by selectively enforcing its rules regarding uniforms.

DOJ Opinion Says EEOC's Title VII Rules on Disparate Impact Are Unconstitutional

Yesterday, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued a 25-page opinion (full text) concluding that the EEOC's regulations and guidance documents on disparate-impact liability under Title VII are unconstitutional. The OLC's opinion focuses on disparate impact in racial discrimination cases. However, the same rules apply to religious discrimination cases, even though those rules are seldom used in that context. The OLC Opinion says in part:

... Rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to smoke out intentional discrimination—imposing liability only when disproportionate adverse effects give rise to a strong inference of intentional discrimination—EEOC’s historic interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent. Because EEOC’s historic approach divorces liability from circumstances giving rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred, it functions as a qualified racial-proportionality mandate and spurs employers to engage in race-based decisionmaking to avoid liability. That approach is unlawful and unconstitutional.

Three corrections to that approach are necessary.... First, the business-necessity defense is not a high bar; it requires employers to demonstrate only that the challenged practice is rational, convenient, or helpful for serving a valid business purpose. Employment practices are presumptively job related, and only irrational or arbitrary practices with no plausible job-relatedness can create disparate-impact liability. Second, plaintiffs must satisfy a robust causality requirement by demonstrating ... that the challenged employment practice itself (not external factors or other employer practices) caused the alleged disparate impact. Third, plaintiffs must establish with particular evidence that there is an available alternative practice that causes less disparate impact and would be equally effective for serving the employer’s valid business purpose....

Workplace requirements and selection procedures—such as background checks, aptitude tests, knowledge-based tests, SAT scores, high-school graduation requirements, or blind auditions—are presumptively job-related. Only practices that establish truly “artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers”—i.e., those that have no plausible job-relatedness—can create liability....

The Justice Department issued a press release announcing the issuance of the OLC Opinion.

Will Next Battles for Religious Accommodation Be Objections To AI?

An article last week in Business Insider suggests that the next battlefield for religious accommodation under Title VII may be artificial intelligence. Business Insider reports in part:

Opposed to using AI for her software-engineering job, Erin Maus secured something of a miracle from her employer: a religious exemption.

Maus, a Unitarian Universalist, said she proposed the special treatment in April, citing environmental and ethical objections to AI that don't align with her religious beliefs. She also said she consulted an employment lawyer and her local chapter's minister to help make her case.

Maus was granted the accommodation in mid-May, according to an email seen by Business Insider....

... The technology has also recently drawn scrutiny from Pope Leo XIV, who warned last month that AI could undermine human dignity and displace workers if left unchecked, in a more than 42,000-word encyclical.

Some people have interpreted the pontiff's letter as grounds for religious objections to using AI in the workplace. It's a stance that carries real legal weight, given that federal law requires employers to consider faith-based requests....

9th Circuit: Requested Religious Exemptions from Vaccine Mandate Would Have Imposed Undue Hardship

In Williams v. Legacy Health, (9th Cir., May 6, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a hospital system's refusal to grant religious exemptions from its Covid vaccine mandate to Vancouver, Washington hospital employees whose duties put them in close contact with patients or staff. The court upheld the dismissal of plaintiffs' Title VII religious discrimination claims.  It concluded that granting the requested religious exemptions would have imposed "undue hardship" on Legacy Health. The court said in part:

At the time it denied Employees’ exemption requests, Legacy forecast an acute strain on its business of providing safe and effective medical care to the public. The COVID-19 Delta variant had just emerged, and Legacy predicted a surge of hospitalizations across its eight locations. In that context, Legacy reasonably sought to ensure that its employees were vaccinated. The statistical evidence available to Legacy revealed that high vaccination rates, while not a panacea, reduced overall transmission risk. Vaccination also proved highly effective at preventing infection in the healthcare setting, where other measures like social distancing were impractical or “impossible,” as one expert explained. By contrast, Legacy’s unrebutted epidemiological expert evidence showed that unvaccinated “frontline workers,” like Employees, faced a unique risk of infection—and that any infections could contribute to “significant outbreaks among patients [and] colleagues.” 

Vital Law reports on the decision.

Cert. Petition Filed in Covid Religious Exemption Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) has been filed in Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue, (Sup. Ct., filed 4/16/2026). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by eight firefighters that the Snohomish fire department violated Title VII and Washington state law by refusing to accommodate their requests for religious exemptions from the state's Covid vaccine mandate for all healthcare providers. (See prior posting.) The petition seeking Supreme Court review frames the Question Presented as follows:

Whether an employer can defeat a Title VII religious accommodation claim by establishing merely that it had a reasonable basis for believing that a requested accommodation would inflict an undue hardship on the employer or whether the employer must establish that the requested accommodation would have actually imposed an undue hardship.

The Center Square reports on the filing.

9th Circuit Denies En Banc Rehearing in Vaccine Mandate Case

In Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center, (9th Cir., April 15, 2926), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied both a panel rehearing and an en banc rehearing in a case involving a medical center employee's claimed religious objections to both a Covid vaccine requirement and to the accommodation granted by her employer. A 3-judge panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of the employee's Title VII lawsuit, concluding that her objections were secular, not religious. (See prior posting.) Her religious exemption from vaccination was conditioned, in part, on her having weekly antigen testing. She objected to that accommodation because she believed the ethylene oxide used in obtaining a nasal swab for the test was carcinogenic and her religion prohibited her from defiling her body in this manner.

In two dissenting opinions, a total of eight judges dissented from the denial of an en banc rehearing, some joining in both dissenting opinions. Judge Forrest's dissent, joined by five other judges, said in part:

Our role in assessing whether a plaintiff has shown a bona fide religious belief is a “narrow function.”... Generally, we may determine only whether the religious conflict identified by the plaintiff “reflects an honest conviction.”... This is because anything more extends beyond a judge’s competence....

The court’s reasoning gives no credence to Detwiler’s claim that she received revelation from God that informed her health choices. For those who believe that God can provide individualized guidance for daily living, whether that guidance relates to “secular” or “spiritual” matters is often a distinction without a difference—both emanate from beliefs about deity and its relationship with humanity. That is, many believers do not perceive that the spiritual and the secular are capable of neat separation as relates to matters of revelation....

Judge Tung, joined by six other judges, filed a dissenting opinion which said in part:

Detwiler properly alleged the religious basis of her objection to testing—namely, that her religion forbade her from ingesting a carcinogen, which she viewed as a defilement upon the temple of her body.  That her objection was based in part on a medical finding—that the testing is carcinogenic—did not negate her religious motivation in refusing to submit to such testing....

... [T]he panel majority misapplied Title VII’s text and precedent interpreting “religion,” misconstrued Detwiler’s allegations, and split with the holdings of several other circuits....  But perhaps most problematic, the panel majority’s approach would recast as “purely secular” a person’s religious practices whenever those practices turn also on secular considerations.  It is hard to imagine, frankly, what religious practice would not turn on secular considerations to some degree.

Ministerial Exception May Not Apply to Non-Catholic 1st Grade Teacher in Catholic School

In Coates v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Savannah, (MD GA, April 6, 2026), a Georgia federal district court refused at this point in the litigation to dismiss on ministerial exception grounds claims of racial discrimination in employment brought against a Catholic school by an African American 1st grade teacher. The court said in part:

... [T]he amended complaint plausibly alleges Coates did not serve a ministerial function at SPCCS [St. Peter Clavar Catholic School].  Coates alleges that before her employment with SPCCS even began, Coates told Hillig [the school's principal] she was not Catholic and would not accept employment if it would require her to “participate in Catholic doctrine or worship services.”... Hillig responded by assuring Coates that religious instruction would not be her responsibility and that she would only need to escort the students to Mass on Wednesdays and monitor behavior.... During Coates’ employment, Coates did not teach religion or lead students in worship or prayer.... Nor did she participate in “Catholic worship or practices.” ... Yet, Coates received positive performance reviews....

To be sure, the complaint also alleges facts suggesting Coates may have served a ministerial role at SPCCS. Coates signed an employment contract designating her role as “ministerial” and requiring her to model the Catholic faith regardless of religion..... Still, on a motion to dismiss, Coates’ need only plausibly allege she served a non-ministerial function.... Coates has alleged facts suggesting that, despite SPCCS’ formal designation of Coates’ position as ministerial, SPCCS did not actually expect Coates to perform ministerial functions at the school, and ...accepted Coates until she participated in a police investigation against another teacher. Perhaps, as discovery develops, the undisputed facts will show that SPCCS, like most religious schools, has a sincere mission to promote religious education, and that Coates, even as a non-Catholic, served a vital role in that mission. But because the amended complaint plausibly alleg[es] that Coates’ position was non-ministerial, Defendants’ motion to dismiss her employment claims on the basis of the ministerial exception is DENIED...

The court dismissed plaintiff's Title VII religious discrimination claims on the basis of the religious institution exclusion in Title VII.

Court Enforces EEOC Subpoena for Information on Jewish Employees at Penn

In U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, (ED PA, March 31, 2026), a Pennsylvania federal district court enforced the EEOC's subpoena for information about Jewish employees of the University of Pennsylvania. The EEOC is investigating a charge that Penn engaged in harassment of Jewish employees in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The court said in part:

... [U]unlike investigations into ... sexual harassment or racial discrimination, the subpoena sought information pertaining to people’s faith, making its requests more intrusive and calling for greater sensitivity, something the EEOC now acknowledges. 

One of those requests in particular sought ... lists of school groups and organizations “related to the Jewish religion,” including personal contact information for Penn employees in those groups.  Though ineptly worded, the request had an understandable purpose—to obtain in a narrowly tailored way ... information on individuals in Penn’s Jewish community who could have experienced or witnessed antisemitism in the workplace....

Penn and other groups and associations the Court permitted to intervene significantly raised the dispute’s temperature by impliedly and even expressly comparing the EEOC’s efforts to protect Jewish employees from antisemitism to the Holocaust and the Nazis’ compilation of “lists of Jews.”  Such allegations are unfortunate and inappropriate.  They also obfuscate the Court’s limited role and the discrete legal issues before it.  And the EEOC no longer seeks any employee’s specific affiliation with a particular Jewish-related organization on campus.... 

Politico reports on the decision.

4th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In 3 Employment Discrimination Cases Involving Religiously Affiliated Institutions

On March 17, the U.S.4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in three cases of interest:

(1) In Zinski v. Liberty University, Inc., (audio of full oral arguments) the court heard an appeal in a Virginia federal district court case. The district court had refused to dismiss a Title VII sex discrimination lawsuit against Liberty University brought by a former employee whose employment as an IT Apprentice was terminated because she underwent a male to female sex transition. (See prior posting).

(2) In Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, (audio of full oral arguments), the court heard an appeal in a Maryland federal district court case that held that the religious corporation exemption from the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act does not apply to the termination of spousal health care benefits of the same-sex spouse of a data analyst and advisor working for Catholic Relief Services. (See prior posting.)

(3) In General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Horton, (audio of full oral arguments) the court heard an appeal in a Maryland federal district court case which denied a preliminary injunction in a suit challenging the Maryland Supreme Court's interpretation of the religious exemption in the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act. The Maryland Supreme Court has held that the exemption is limited to claims brought by employees who perform duties that directly further the core mission of the religious entity. (See prior posting).

County Employee Sues Over Denial of Religious Accommodation So He Could Avoid Celebrating Pride Month

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by an employee of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works alleging that the county violated Title VII as well as the 1st and 14th Amendments and California law by denying him a religious accommodation so he would not have to celebrate Pride Month. The complaint (full text) in Batman v. Los Angeles County, (CD CA, filed 3/10/2026), alleges in part:

4. Beginning in March 2023, the County directed all of its government departments to ensure that the “Pride Progress Flag” was flown at every government department.... The policy revisions also directed the government offices to adopt ways to demonstrate that all government offices celebrate so-called “Pride Month” and make its celebration overt, express, and universal.  

5. As a result of his sincerely held religious beliefs and a conflict with his employer’s open and notorious celebration of something Batman considers a sin, Batman requested a simple accommodation of working remotely during the one month of the year that his employment requirements conflict with his sincerely held religious beliefs.....

82. Rather than provide Batman a reasonable accommodation that was plainly available and not burdensome to anyone, Batman was instructed that he could simply use the back entrance....  

83. The Department also suggested to Batman that he seek mental health counseling for any distress he may feel as a result of the conflict between his sincerely held religious beliefs and the Department’s denial of his requested accommodation.... In other words, the Department suggested to Batman that his religious beliefs required mental health counseling rather than accommodation.

The complaint sets out at length the Biblical basis for plaintiff's beliefs.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

EEOC Says Federal Agencies May Base Restroom Access on Biological Sex

 In a February 26 press release, the EEOC announced:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2-1 today to approve a federal sector appellate decision adjudicating an appeal regarding access to intimate spaces, including bathrooms and locker rooms, in federal workplaces under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended....

 “Today’s opinion is consistent with the plain meaning of ‘sex’ as understood by Congress at the time Title VII was enacted, as well as longstanding civil rights principles: that similarly situated employees must be treated equally,” said EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas. “When it comes to bathrooms, male and female employees are not similarly situated. Biology is not bigotry.”

When adjudicating appeals of alleged employment discrimination in the federal sector, the EEOC applies longstanding precedent, including relevant Supreme Court decisions, to the facts of the case. In this case, however, such precedent does not exist, as federal courts have not determined whether Title VII requires employers to permit trans-identifying employees to access bathrooms and other intimate spaces otherwise reserved for the opposite sex. In the absence of authoritative court precedent, the EEOC used the traditional tools of statutory construction, turning first to the ordinary meaning of the statute’s text and ensuring that the decision is further anchored by the Supreme Court’s precedents in comparable areas of law.

In applying the traditional tools of statutory construction, the EEOC found that Title VII permits a federal agency employer to maintain single-sex bathrooms and similar intimate spaces; and permits a federal agency employer to exclude employees, including trans-identifying employees, from opposite sex-facilities. Today’s opinion overturns a prior EEOC federal sector appellate decision (Lusardi v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133395, 2015 WL 1607756 (2015)) with respect to the portion of that opinion addressing a federal employee’s access to an opposite-sex bathroom based on “gender identity.”

As with all of the EEOC’s appellate decisions adjudicating federal agency employment discrimination complaints, this decision applies only to federal agencies subject to the EEOC’s administrative complaint process for federal employees. It does not apply to private sector employers, nor does it bind any federal court.

The Agency's action approved a 23-page Federal Sector Appellate Decision, Selina S. v. Driscoll, (EEOC Federal Sector Appeal, Feb. 26, 2026), a case brought by a civilian employee of the Army.

DOJ Sues UCLA Under Title VII Alleging Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias

The Justice Department Civil Rights Division this week filed suit against the University of California alleging that UCLA violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to protect Jewish and Israeli employees from antisemitic and anti-Israel harassment and violence. The 81-page complaint (full text) in United States v. Regents of the University of California, (CD CA, filed 2/24/2026), alleges in part:

Swastikas, calls for the extermination of Jews and the Jewish state of Israel, antisemitic violence, and open harassment of Jewish students, faculty, and staff: this was the grim scene at the University of California Los Angeles ... beginning in the 2023 to 2024 academic year. Following the October 7, 2023 ... massacre in Israel, UCLA’s administration turned a blind eye to—and at times facilitated—grossly antisemitic acts and systematically ignored cries for help from its own terrified Jewish and Israeli employees. Activists at the now infamous encampment at Royce Hall physically excluded Jewish students, faculty, and staff from portions of campus.... UCLA is currently under a permanent injunction banning it and its officers from allowing further exclusions of Jews or religious supporters of Israel from campus or activities. That prior action generally sought to protect the Jewish students at UCLA. But the harm to Jewish and Israeli employees at UCLA goes much deeper. The general atmosphere of antisemitism was, and remains, so severe and pervasive that UCLA’s own official Task Force on Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias concluded that the University’s failures to protect Jewish staff and faculty constituted a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII.... This suit seeks to right these wrongs.

Until the United States Department of Justice issued its notice of investigation letter to UCLA in March 2025, not a single one of the dozens of civil rights complaints filed by Jewish and Israeli employees since October 7 was properly investigated. UCLA’s Office of Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion (EDI Office) ... routinely ignored complaints of antisemitism. And UCLA continues to mishandle them....

Moreover, UCLA’s flawed Anti-Discrimination Policy was poorly designed and maintained, making it difficult for victims to report hostile work environment claims. UCLA faculty, staff, and administrators were untrained on the University policy and routinely failed to report antisemitism. The most sophisticated faculty and staff, including members of UCLA leadership, were puzzled by the confusing and ineffective complaint procedures, leaving Jewish and Israeli employees with nowhere to turn. They got UCLA’s message that filing an antisemitism complaint was futile....

The Justice Department issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

7th Circuit: "Moral" Objections Not Protected By Title VII

 In Bowlin v. Board of Directors, Judah Christian School, (7th Circuit, Feb. 13, 2026), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that moral objections that are not also religiously based are not protected by Title VII. The court said in part:

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of Illinois required all school employees to either receive a vaccination or undergo weekly testing for the virus. Plaintiffs—three employees at different Illinois grade schools—refused to receive a vaccination, citing their religious beliefs. When the schools offered weekly testing as an accommodation, Plaintiffs claimed the testing also violated their moral consciences and refused. As a result, they were either placed on unpaid leave or terminated....

Although “a ‘religious’ objection can sound in both religious and non-religious terms,” ... here, Plaintiffs do not moor their objections to the testing requirement to any religious beliefs. Their only relevant allegation is that their “moral consciences … prevent them from submitting to health care procedures which they, competent adults, do not believe are medically necessary.” This, on its own, fails to plausibly allege that the request is “based in part on an aspect of [Plaintiffs’] religious belief or practice” because Plaintiffs do not identify what belief or practice the testing would violate.,,,

Nevertheless, even assuming Plaintiffs had adequately alleged that Defendants violated their religious beliefs, their claim still fails because the accommodation they request would require Defendants to violate the law, thereby imposing upon them an undue hardship,,,, 

HRD reported on the decision.

Ministerial Exception Bars Former Priest's Title VII Claims

In Obienu v. Archdiocese of New Orleans, (ED LA, Dec. 11, 2025), a Louisiana federal district court held that a former priest's Title VII claims against his archdiocese are barred by the ministerial exception doctrine. Plaintiff, a United States citizen of Nigerian origin, claimed that clergy in the New Orleans archdiocese mistreated him in a number of ways. Plaintiff filed this Title VII action alleging wrongful termination, failure to promote, failure to allow him to complete the training necessary for promotion, unequal terms and conditions of employment, and retaliation. The court said in part:

Defendants argue that Obienu’s employment discrimination claims are barred because “this lawsuit arises out of a disgruntled former priest’s dissatisfaction with how [the ANO] managed his role as a minister within its system of religious governance.” ...

... [Obienu] contends that summary judgment is not warranted because there are factual disputes whether “the adverse employment actions at issue stemmed not from religious doctrine but from national-origin discrimination, disparate treatment, and retaliation after reporting mistreatment.”...

With the Fifth Circuit’s broad pronouncement in McRaney [v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention] ... that the ministerial exception bars secular courts from considering Title VII and related state-law employment claims brought by a minister against a religious organization, this Court is bound to conclude that Obienu’s remaining employment discrimination claims against Defendants must be dismissed.  It is undisputed that Obienu was, at all relevant times, either a Roman Catholic priest or training to be one.  All the incidents he alleges constitute “employment discrimination” arose while he was training or working under the auspices of the ANO either as a seminarian or as an ordained priest. Further, the persons who he says acted unlawfully were themselves ordained priests or the archbishop.

Prison Chaplain Sues for Wrongful Termination

Suit was filed last week in a Florida federal district court by a Christian pastor who was terminated from his position as Senior Pastor at Madison Correctional Institution after he refused to proctor a newly-hired female pastor. The 75-page complaint (full text) in Horst v. Florida Department of Corrections, (ND FL, filed 11/26/2025), alleges in part:

13. On the basis of his sincerely held religious beliefs grounded in the above-referenced passages of Titus and Timothy, among other Scriptures, Senior Chaplain Horst was compelled to abstain from proctoring training that instructs a female to teach and preach to men. Female chaplains ministering to males is a practice that directly contradicts Scripture and Senior Chaplain Horst’s sincerely held religious beliefs.

14. On the basis of his sincerely held religious beliefs, Senior Chaplain Horst requested religious accommodation that would permit him to comply with his employments roles and requirements but also conform his conduct to his beliefs. 

15. Specifically, Senior Chaplain Horst’s religious accommodation request was that one of the DOC’s dozens of other competent and qualified chaplains proctor Chaplain Doe’s non-mandatory training.

Plaintiff alleges failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, wrongful termination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, violation of Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as violations of the First and 14th Amendments.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Andrea Lucas Named Chair of EEOC

Last week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that Andrea R. Lucas has been designated by President Trump as Chair of the Commission. She has been a member of the Commission since 2020. She was confirmed by the Senate in July 2025 to serve a second term on the Commission. She has been serving as Acting Chair of the EEOC since January of this year. (Background.) According to Lucas' biography on the EEOC website:

She prioritizes evenhanded enforcement of civil rights laws for all Americans, including by rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination; protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination; defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights, including women’s rights to single-sex spaces; protecting workers from religious bias and harassment; and remedying other areas that have been historically under-enforced by the agency.

On Oct. 7, the U.S. Senate confirmed Brittany Panuccio as an EEOC member, restoring sufficient members for a quorum. The EEOC lost its quorum when President Trump removed two Biden-appointed Commissioners in January. (Background.)

The EEOC administers federal laws barring employment discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of religion.

Broad Religious Statements Did Not Support Title VII Discrimination Claim

 In Castaneda v. State of California Department of Motor Vehicles, (ED CA, Oct. 28, 2025), a DMV employee brought several federal and state claims challenging her firing. She had raised religious objections to the Covid vaccine and also objected to the alternative of testing by DMV's third-party contractor instead of her own doctor. Dismissing, with leave to amend, plaintiff's Title VII religious discrimination claim, a California federal magistrate judge said in part:

... Plaintiff does not explain the religious basis for her objection to the vaccine, beyond saying that “her body is sacred and God-given” and she cannot be compelled to have her DNA “harvested” and “tested on” because it is “the code of life given by God.”... The Ninth Circuit recently held that “[i]nvocations of broad, religious tenets cannot, on their own, convert a secular preference into a religious conviction” for purposes of a discrimination claim....  To allow Plaintiff’s claim simply because she invokes the concepts of bodily autonomy and God in the same sentence “would destroy the pleading standard for religious discrimination claims, allowing complainants to invoke magic words and survive a dismissal without stating a prima facie case.” ... 

Title VII Suit Alleges Failure to Accommodate Religious Refusal to Work Alone with a Woman

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by an HVAC technician who alleges that his firing violated Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. The complaint (full text) in Ostapa v. Trane U.S. Inc,, (ND NY, filed 10/14/2025), alleges that Plaintiff's employer, Trane Technologies, for the first time hired a female technician to work out of the same office as plaintiff. The complaint goes on in part:

13. Paul is a devout Christian. He attended Bible College in Ukraine before emigrating to the United States and is a member in good standing of the Southern Baptist Convention, a fundamentalist Christian denomination. 

14. Paul’s Christian faith and sincerely held religious beliefs dictate that he is not to be alone with a woman other than his wife. The origin of this religious doctrine is the biblical story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife found in Genesis 39....

Plaintiff's manager agreed to accommodate plaintiff's beliefs by not assigning a female to work alone with plaintiff. Subsequently, however, a dispatcher reported plaintiff to the HR department and he was ultimately fired. The complaint alleges that the firing constituted a failure to accommodate and retaliation in violation of Title VII, as well as a violation of New York law.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.