Hospital Employee Who Refused Covid Nasal Swab Testing Is Entitled to Unemployment Benefits

 In St. Luke's University Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, (PA Commonw. Court, Nov. 1, 2024), a Pennsylvania state appellate court upheld a decision by the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review that a former employee of plaintiff hospital was entitled to unemployment benefits because her objections to Covid testing, which led to her firing, were religious. The hospital required all its employees to either obtain a Covid vaccination or, if they were granted a religious exemption, to undergo weekly nasal swab Covid testing. Employee Christine Puello objected to swab testing, contending in part:

Inserting a nasal swab with contaminants into my body violates my conscience and my sincerely held religious beliefs as I have previously described in my religious exemptions.  I am willing to submit my saliva under observation for weekly COVID[-19] testing which eliminates any invasiveness and preserves my dignity of one less object/contaminant entering my body.

The court concluded:

While Claimant did cite safety concerns as a secondary reason for refusing nasal swab testing, the record makes clear that her primary objection was religious and not secular in nature.  The Board credited Claimant’s testimony that this method of testing was prohibited by the tenets of her religion and determined she had good cause to refuse it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Hagedorn also filed a brief dissenting opinion.

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

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.

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.]

Minnesota Appeals Court Decides 4 Cases on Religious Exemptions from Vaccine Mandates

Yesterday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals decided four separate appeals from decisions of Unemployment Law Judges who denied unemployment benefits because an applicant refused on religious grounds to comply with an employer's Covid vaccine mandate. Goede v. Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, (MN App., June 12, 2023), was the only one of the four cases published as a precedential decision. The court affirmed the ULJ's denial of benefits even though the state Department of Employment and Economic Development urged its reversal.  The court said in part:

The ULJ found that “Goede does not have a sincerely held religious belief that prevents her from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.” The ULJ explained: “Goede’s testimony, when viewed as a whole, shows by a preponderance of the evidence that Goede’s concern is about some vaccines, and that she is declining to take them because she does not trust them, not because of a religious belief.” The ULJ further stated that “[w]hen looking at the totality of the circumstances, Goede’s belief that COVID-19 vaccines are not okay to put in her body is a personal belief not rooted in religion.”

In Daniel v. Honeywell International, Inc., (MN App., June 12, 2023), the appellate court again upheld a denial of benefits, this time to a former employee who refused both the Covid vaccine and refused to comply with the employer's religious accommodation.  The court said in part:

Relator asserts that Honeywell’s COVID-19 policy requiring that he get weekly COVID-19 tests and submit the results “required [him] to defy [his] religious faith.” He asserts that he was upholding his religious faith “by practicing [his] God given right of ‘control over [his] medical’ by not subjecting Jesus Christ’s temple to forcefully coerced medical treatments such as weekly PCR and/or rapid antigen test requirements.”...

The ULJ found that relator lacked credibility because he provided inconsistent testimony and he struggled to explain his religious beliefs.

The court reversed the ULJ's denial of benefits in two other cases. In Benish v. Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, (MN App., June 12, 2023) the court said in part:

The ULJ found that Benish made a “personal choice” to refuse the vaccine, but Benish did not testify to any personal reasons for refusing the vaccine. Instead, he consistently testified that his reason for refusing it was religious. The ULJ also placed improper weight on inconsistencies in Benish’s religious beliefs and on the fact that the Pope had encouraged vaccination in determining that Benish’s beliefs were not sincerely held.... 

... [W]e conclude that the ULJ’s finding—that Benish did not have a sincerely held religious belief that precluded him from getting a COVID-19 vaccine—is unsupported by substantial evidence and must be reversed.

In Millington v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, (MN App., June 12, 2023), the court reversed the ULJ's denial of benefits, saying in part:

Millington clearly and consistently testified regarding her religious reasons for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. Millington’s testimony concerning personal reasons for refusing the vaccine— that she already had COVID-19 and believed she did not need the vaccine and that she had concerns about the safety of the vaccine—are not sufficient to constitute substantial evidence.

In addition, although we generally defer to a ULJ’s credibility findings, the ULJ’s credibility finding in this case was based on at least two erroneous considerations. First, the ULJ erred by relying on the absence of direction from a religious leader to support a finding that Millington did not have a sincerely held religious belief.... Second, the ULJ failed to explain how Millington’s use of over-the-counter medications or alcohol is pertinent to her objection to the COVID-19 vaccine based on its relationship to fetal cell lines. Consequently, the ULJ’s credibility determination is not entitled to the same deference typically owed by an appellate court.

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.

Catholic Charities Is Not Exempt from Unemployment Compensation Statute

In Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, (WI App., Dec. 13, 2022), a Wisconsin state appellate court held that Catholic Charities and its sub-entities are not exempt from the Wisconsin Unemployment Compensation Act as organizations "operated primarily for religious purposes." It emphasized that the statute should be "liberally construed to effect unemployment compensation coverage for workers who are economically dependent upon others in respect to their wage-earning status." The court said that it must look to the work of Catholic Charities, not the Catholic Church itself, to determine whether there is an exemption.  Deciding that the court should look both to motives and activities, the court concluded that while Catholic Charities has a religious motivation for its work, the nature of its activities is not religious.  The court said in part:

[T]he activities of CCB and its sub-entities are the provision of charitable social services that are neither inherently or primarily religious activities. CCB and its sub-entities do not operate to inculcate the Catholic faith; they are not engaged in teaching the Catholic religion, evangelizing, or participating in religious rituals or worship services with the social service participants; they do not require their employees, participants, or board members to be of the Catholic faith; participants are not required to attend any religious training, orientation, or services; their funding comes almost entirely from government contracts or private companies, not from the Diocese of Superior; and they do not disseminate any religious material to participants. Nor do CCB and its sub-entities provide program participants with an “education in the doctrine and discipline of the church.”...

UPDATE: On Feb. 9, 2023, the original opinion was withdrawn and was replaced by this opinion on Feb. 14, 2023.

Christian After-School Program Employee Not Covered By Unemployment Insurance

In By the Hand Club for Kids, NFP, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, (IL App., Dec. 30, 2020), an Illinois state appellate court held that an organization that operates a Christ-centered after-school program to aid students is exempt from the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act. The organization assists students with homework, provides tutoring and literacy program, health services and a meal program. It also provides chapel services and Bible reading. The court concluded that the organization is "operated primarily for religious purposes." Thus the court denied  an unemployment compensation claim by the group's former human resources director.  ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Objection To Immunization Was Not A Religious Belief

In Potter v. St. Joseph's Medical Center, (MN App., , Dec. 24, 2018), a Minnesota appellate court held, in a case involving the denial of unemployment benefits, that a claimant's refusal to obtain an influenza shot "was driven by a personal, secular belief," not a religious one.  The court said in part:

Potter's assertion that her faith requires that she not inject herself with impurities is undercut by her own rationale. Potter stated that if the flu shot was scientifically proven to be effective she "probably would" receive it. It follows that Potter is unwilling to inject what she considers scientifically ineffective impurities but is willing to inject what she considers scientifically effective impurities. This supports the respondents' assertion that Potter's beliefs are not sincerely held religious beliefs, but, rather, "her objection was based on her medical and scientific views, cloaked under the guise of religion."

Christian After-School Program Is Exempt From Illinois Unemployment Taxes

In By the Hand Club for Kids, NFP, Inc. v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, (IL Cir. Ct., July 18, 2018), an Illinois state trial court held that an evangelical after-school program for impoverished Chicago school children is exempt from the requirement to pay unemployment taxes to cover its employees.  The  court held that the group falls under the exemption for organizations operated primarily for religious purposes. The state argued that the organization is merely an after-school program that primarily furnishes homework help, tutoring, hot meals and medical attention.  The court however emphasized that the group sees these charitable acts a a religious practice, and also that the organization proselytizes the children participating in their program.  ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Believer In Mark of the Beast Entitled To Unemployment Comp

In Kaite v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, (PA Commnw. Ct., Nov. 29, 2017), a Pennsylvania appellate court reversed the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review and held that a suspended employee whose unemployment compensation claim was rejected was justified in refusing to comply with an employer's fingerprinting requirement. Petitioner Bonnie Kaite contended that "she was raised to believe that any marking on the hands or head is the mark of the devil and will prevent her from getting into heaven...."  The court went on to say:

The United States Supreme Court has held that a conditioning of the availability of benefits upon an employee’s willingness to violate a cardinal principle of her religious faith effectively penalizes the free exercise of her constitutional liberties. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963).

Penn Live reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.] 

No Unemployment Benefits Where Religious Objections Leading To Resignation Were Not Disclosed

In Kelly v. Unemployment Compensation Review Board, (Commonwealth Ct. PA, Oct. 17, 2017), a Pennsylvania appellate court affirmed the denial of unemployment compensation benefits to an employee who resigned her job for religious reasons, but did not first inform her employer of her religious concerns.  In the case, petitioner Lori Kelly worked as a project manager for the University of Pittsburgh's Health Science's Tissue Bank. Kelly, who is Catholic, became concerned when she learned that some of the fetal tissue samples whose distribution she facilitated came from aborted fetuses.  However she complained at work only about the contentious relationship she had developed with her immediate supervisor.  The court concluded:

Respectful of Claimant’s religious beliefs, we must nevertheless affirm the order of the Board denying Claimant unemployment compensation benefits under Section 402(b) based on her failure to notify Employer of her religious objections to Employer’s use of fetal tissue in GUDMAP. Such notification would have provided Employer with an opportunity to accommodate her religious objections by transferring her to a project that did not involve the use of fetal tissue.

Colorado Rules Cargill's Somali Muslim Employees Are Entitled To Unemployment Compensation

Denver Post reported Thursday that Colorado's labor department has ruled that more than 100 Muslim employees fired in December from a Cargill, Inc. meatpacking plant are entitled to unemployment compensation.  At issue was whether the employees could take prayer breaks during their shifts. Cargill withdrew its appeals in the cases after losing in 20 of them.  The dispute in part reflects tensions between Somali workers and Hispanic workers who lead the Teamsters union that represents them.  It is estimated that the unemployment payments will cost Colorado's unemployment insurance fund nearly $1 million.

Muslim Employee Not Constructively Discharged For Refusing Friday Work

In Shah v. IMI's MN, Inc, (MN App, June 15, 2015), a Minnesota appeals court, in a 2-1 decision, agreed with an unemployment law judge that a Muslim employee of an optical store was not forced to resign because of failure to accommodate her need for religious reasons not to work on Fridays. While she was scheduled two different times to work on Fridays, on both times this was changed when she complained.  The majority concluded that her resignation did not result from requiring her to choose between violating her religious beliefs or losing her job. Thus she was not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.

Judge Minge dissented, arguing that the case should be remanded for the unemployment law judge to determine whether the employer had made a commitment to accommodate the employee's religious beliefs in the future and whether the difficulties experienced by the employee over accommodation were a material cause of the health problems that led her to resign.

Seventh Day Adventist Entitled To Unemployment Benefits After Being Fired For Saturday Absences

In Lester v. Butler, (GA App., March 17, 2015), a Georgia state appeals court held that a Seventh Day Adventist who refused to work on Saturdays for religious reasons cannot be denied unemployment benefits when she was fired for excessive absences.  The fact that she became a Seventh Day Adventist some three months after she took her job does not change the result.

Religious School Exempt From Arizona Unemployment Insurance Tax

In Above and Beyond Child Care Inc. v. State of Arizona, (App. Bd., Dec. 19, 2014), the Arizona Department of Economic Security Appeals Board held that a church-affiliated pre-school and K-6 elementary school is exempt from the state unemployment insurance law.  The state had contended that the exemption for organizations operated primarily for religious purposes does not apply because the school's primary purposes are child care and teaching of secular subjects. The appeals board disagreed, holding that the school's teaching personnel are not covered by unemployment insurance.  It emphasized that the school's curriculum and class operations are infused with religious faith. An ADF press release last month announced the decision.

Excluding Churches From Unemployment Compensation Coverage Does Not Violate 1st or 14th Amendment

In Spicer v . Texas Workforce Commission, (TX App., April 22, 2014), a Texas state appellate court upheld the statutory exclusion of persons employed by churches from Texas' unemployment compensation coverage.  Appellant, formerly an organist and pianist for a Methodist church, claimed that denying him unemployment compensation violates his free exercise and equal protection rights. The court disagreed.  Appellant also argued that the exemption of churches from the tax required  by the unemployment compensation system violates the Establishment Clause. Again the court disagreed, saying in part:

a number of types of work are excluded from employment under the TUCA, reflecting the Legislature’s decision that the entities for whom that work is performed should not be subject to the burden of paying the tax required by the unemployment compensation system..... The breadth of the exemptions demonstrates the exemption ... was not “aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion."

No Unemployment Benefits Because Employee Failed To Notify Employer of Scope of Needed Religious Accommodation

In Rhodes v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 2013 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 890 (PA Commonwealth Ct., Dec. 16, 2013), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania agreed with the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review that a former veterans' center food service worker had left his job voluntarily, and had not been forced to leave because of discrimination based on his religious beliefs. Therefore he was not entitled to unemployment benefits.  The former employee had informed his employer that he had religious objections to participating in religious holidays.  The employer accommodated him.  However, when the employee refused to set up for a Fathers' Day luncheon, he was disciplined, and resigned.  The court held that the employee failed to advise his employer that his religious beliefs precluded him from participating not just in religious holidays, but in secular ones also, and thus did not give the employer a reasonable opportunity to accommodate those beliefs.