In Wilkins-Bailey v. Essity Professional Hygiene North America, LLC, (4th Cir., Sept. 1, 2026), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that a North Carolina federal district court wrongly granted summary judgment to an employer charged with religious and racial discrimination under Title VII. The employer denied an exemption from its Covid vaccine mandate to a black female sales administrator who is a Jehovah's Witness. Plaintiff's refusal to be vaccinated led to her dismissal by the company. The company contended that plaintiff's reasons for seeking an exemption were secular, not religious. In rejecting that contention, the 4th Circuit's majority said in part:
... Wilkins-Bailey, by connecting her refusal to vaccinate to her belief that her “body is a temple,” has based her claim on a belief which is religious.... She blends her explanation of her beliefs with numerous references to personal safety and the natural or non-natural character of vaccination and other medical treatments, as well as historical concerns about discriminatory practices in medicine.....
Even so, we think it is plainly clear that Wilkins-Bailey has connected her refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine with her religious beliefs by stating that it “is God’s law” that she must “be protective of [her] temple.”... Indeed, a claimant’s mixed secular and religious motives do not preclude protection under Title VII....
Wilkins-Bailey has clearly provided sufficient evidence to permit a jury to find that her refusal to vaccinate is connected to her religious beliefs....
Moreover, “courts should not expect, much less require, exemption requests to sound like they were written by someone with legal training.”...
Even though Wilkins-Bailey’s beliefs are sufficiently religious, it may be that they do not impose on her a “religious obligation to refuse” vaccination.... Essity contends that because Wilkins-Bailey believes she may personally interpret the requirements of her religion, that her interpretation is therefore the product of a “personal decision.”...
We do not agree. This interpretation of Title VII would leave millions of religious Americans unprotected in their workplaces. Many religions permit and even encourage their adherents to discern or interpret official texts, teachings, and tenets in order to decide for themselves which actions are required to fulfill religious obligations. Some religions have no centrally managed canons, nor agreed-upon sacred commandments.... Title VII protects even those religions which do not require strict adherence to a written catechism....
The court, however, affirmed dismissal of plaintiff's racial discrimination claim, saying in part:
Essity has proffered a nondiscriminatory reason for its differential treatment of Wilkins-Bailey and her posited white comparators: it viewed their requests as stating “religious” reasons, while Wilkins-Bailey’s stated “secular” reasons.... For the purposes of a race discrimination claim, that differentiation is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason....
Judge Floyd dissented as to the religious discrimination claim, saying in part:
I would ... require a plaintiff bringing a religious accommodation claim to put forward more than a mere scintilla of evidence to factually support the conclusion that her belief is connected with her refusal to comply with an employment requirement....
Wilkins-Bailey has not presented the court with a record that could allow a jury to find that her refusal to receive the vaccine is connected to her religious beliefs....
In practice, the majority’s low evidentiary bar would allow any plaintiff who brings a religious discrimination claim to reach a jury so long as they testify that their personal decisions are cloaked in religiosity. This is improper at summary judgment stage.... Under the majority’s reasoning, an employee who obliquely references Psalm 127:2 ... (“In vain you rise early and stay up late, toiling for food to eat—for he grants sleep to those he loves.”) to refuse to work before noon creates a jury question as to whether the company religiously discriminates when it declines to accommodate that employee’s schedule....
... Wilkins-Bailey prays and then reaches a personal decision, and she concedes that she is not obliged by her religion to come to a particular conclusion. Her belief that her religion vests her with the ability to make that personal decision is one step removed from her ultimate decision. Indeed, Wilkins-Bailey “concedes that none of her religious beliefs requires [sic] her to object to the COVID-19 vaccine.”...
