Kansas Supreme Court: Expanded Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate Is Not in Conflict with Title VII

In Powerback Rehabilitation, LLC v. Kansas Department of Labor, (KS Sup. Ct., Sept. 26, 2025), the Kansas Supreme Court in a 4-2 decision, upheld a Kansas  statute (K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663) that requires employers to grant religious exemptions from any Covid vaccine mandate without inquiring into the sincerity of an employee's asserted religious belief. Powerback was subject to federal Medicaid rules that required it to impose a Covid vaccine mandate on its employees. Medicaid incorporated into its rules federal Title VII standards which allow employers to question the sincerity of an employee's religious belief. The Supreme Court rejected the trial court's holding that the Kansas statute was pre-empted by federal law. The Kansas Supreme Court said in part:

Powerback's argument is simple and alluring at first blush. It simply points out that "federal law contemplates an inquiry into the sincerity of an employee's purported religious beliefs. [K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663] specifically disallows this same inquiry. The Vaccine Act thus forces Powerback to make an impossible decision between compliance with Kansas law or compliance with federal law." But this framing of the problem incorporates a deft sleight-of-hand. Because federal "contemplation" is not a mandate. That is, nowhere in the federal regulations ... is an employer subject to the Vaccine Mandate required to inquire into the sincerity of an employee's religious beliefs. At most, the employer is permitted to make this inquiry....

Thus, Powerback could have granted a religious exemption to Keeran that was consistent with both Title VII (as incorporated into the Vaccine Mandate) and with K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 by simply not inquiring into Keeran's religious sincerity.

The dissent rejects this conclusion on the grounds that Title VII's allowance of what the dissent characterizes as a "meaningful interactive process with the employee" is actually a "federally granted right" which state law cannot "nullify" or "forbid" an employer from exercising.... If this were true, the dissent would be correct. But it is not true. Indeed, the dissent has dramatically misunderstood—and in fact inverted— Title VII. The statutory framework adopted by Congress in Title VII does not define or create any genuine "rights" in employers. It is instead entirely about protecting and preserving the rights of employees not to be discriminated against....

Justice Stanridge, joined by Justice Rosen, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Under longstanding Supremacy Clause doctrine, state law must yield where compliance with both state and federal law is impossible, or where state law frustrates Congress' objectives. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 fails on both counts....

Title VII embodies a carefully calibrated framework, one that protects religious exercise while preserving the ability of employers to safeguard legitimate operational and safety interests. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 is incompatible with that framework in two respects. It makes compliance with both state and federal law impossible, and it obstructs the objectives of Congress by replacing a balanced system with one of absolute deference. Either defect alone is sufficient for preemption; together, they leave no room for doubt. Because Kansas has attempted to supplant federal law with a contradictory regime, I would hold K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 is preempted by the Supremacy Clause.

Kansas City Star reports on the decision.

Massachusetts Appellate Court Reverses Dismissal of Vaccine Exemption Claim

In June v. UMass Memorial Healthcare System, (MA App., Sept. 29, 2025), a Massachusetts state appellate court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a state law religious discrimination suit brought by an operating room surgical technician who was denied a religious exemption from the health care system's Covid vaccine mandate. In denying an accommodation, the system's religious exemption committee said:

This requester asserts they cannot receive the COVID-19 vaccines based on their Christian faith because they will 'genetically alter' their body.  This is patently false -- none of the COVID-19 vaccines genetically alter the body or change a person's DNA.  Reliance on demonstrably false information cannot be a basis for a religious accommodation." 

In reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment, the appellate court said in part:

A plaintiff, like the plaintiff here, who believes that she was created in God's image and that her body is a temple of God and thus needs God's approval to expose her body to foreign substances, expresses a religious belief.  Moreover, a plaintiff who prays to God and receives a "distinctive message from my God" acts in accordance with religious beliefs when she follows those divine instructions. 

To this, UMass Memorial interposes the objection that "this would create a blanket privilege allowing employees to opt out of any and all employer requirements simply by stating they prayed and received guidance."  Although UMass Memorial is free to argue to a jury that the plaintiff is not telling the truth, "[i]t is not permissible for a judge to determine what is or is not a matter of religious doctrine." ...

Here, the summary judgment record reveals a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether accommodating the plaintiff's religious beliefs would cause an undue hardship to UMass Memorial.

Boston Herald reports on the decision.

9th Circuit: Employee's Objection to Covid Vaccine Accommodation Was Not Religious

 In Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center, (9th Cir., Sept. 23, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed a district court's dismissal of a suit under Title VII and a parallel Oregon statute brought by Sherry Detwiler, the medical center's Director of Health Information. Detwiler initially objected on religious grounds to her employer's Covid vaccine requirement. She was granted an exemption, 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. She told her employer in part:

I have asked God for direction regarding the current COVID testing requirement. As I have prayed about what I should do, the Holy Spirit has moved on my heart and conscience that I must not participate in COVID testing that causes harm. If I were to go against the moving of the Holy Spirit, I would be sinning and jeopardizing my relationship with God and violating my conscience . . .

As a Christian protecting my body from defilement according to God’s law, I invoke my religious right to refuse any testing which would alter my DNA and has been proven to cause cancer. I find testing with carcinogens and chemical waste to be in direct conflict with my Christian duty to protect my body as the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Detwiler asked instead either for saliva testing or remote work. The majority said in part:

The Ninth Circuit has not yet endorsed a test for determining the nature, whether religious or secular, of a belief underlying a Title VII claim....

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need not establish her belief is consistent, widely held, or even rational.  However, a complaint must connect the requested exemption with a truly religious principle.  Invocations of broad, religious tenets cannot, on their own, convert a secular preference into a religious conviction....

The District Court acknowledged the sincerity and religiosity of Detwiler’s belief in her body as a temple and even the implied prohibition on ingesting harmful substances.  Therefore, at issue is Detwiler’s belief that the testing swab is harmful, and specifically that EtO is a carcinogen.  This belief is personal and secular, premised on her interpretation of medical research.  In essence, Detwiler labels a personal judgment based on science as a direct product of her general religious tenet.  Yet, her alarm about the test swab is far too attenuated from the broad principle to treat the two as part of a single belief....

Invocation of prayer, without more, is still insufficient to elevate personal medical judgments to the level of religious significance.... Indeed, crediting every secular objection bolstered by a minimal reference to prayer as religious “would amount to a blanket privilege and a limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted obligations.” 

Judge VanDyke filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

By affirming the district court, the majority creates a circuit split.  When faced with the question of whether religious objections to COVID-19 policies mirroring Detwiler’s objection were sufficiently pled, our sister circuits have consistently answered in the affirmative.... 

To work well, the majority’s mode of analysis must be capable of objective, impartial, and consistent application.  If not, such analysis opens wide the door to the discriminatory treatment of religious beliefs.  Those beliefs christened by a judge as “truly religious” will be protected, and those condemned as too mixed with “secular” beliefs will be left unprotected.  The majority’s approach requires the impossible—we are judges, not theologians or philosophers.  Judges are ill equipped to parse mixed claims into the “truly religious” and “purely secular” silos that the majority purports to discern....

Salem Reporter reports on the decision. 

9th Circuit Upholds Fire Department's Denial of Religious Exemptions from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue, (9th Cir., Sept. 2, 2025), 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. The court said in part:

SRFR has pointed to several substantial costs of accommodating Plaintiff’s requested vaccine exemption— the health and safety of its own firefighters and the public, the large number of firefighters seeking accommodations, the risk to its operations and the cost of widespread absences, the potential loss of a lucrative contract with DOC, and the risk of additional liability.  SRFR also provided unrebutted medical evidence that showed the inadequacy of Plaintiffs’ proposed accommodation.  All of this amounts to a showing that SRFR could not reasonably have accommodated Plaintiffs without undue hardship in October 2021....

We cannot judge SRFR by the responses taken by other fire departments....  Nor can we judge SRFR with the clarity of hindsight or the benefit of post-pandemic debates over what measured responses frontline employers should have taken.  We must consider the costs faced by SRFR in October 2021, not today.... [A]t the time the Governor issued the Proclamation, “COVID-19 cases were spiking....  The pandemic forced the State of Washington to make decisions quickly and with limited information.  In so doing, SRFR relied on the scientific evidence and COVID data then available and acted in the best interests of the community....

EEOC Highlights Its Actions to Protect Employees' Religious Freedom

The EEOC yesterday issued a lengthy press release titled 200 Days of EEOC Action to Protect Religious Freedom at Work. The Release says in part:

To date, the EEOC has recovered over $55 million for workers impacted by these [vaccine] mandates—most recently, this week’s $1 million settlement with Mercyhealth. During the Biden Administration, almost all of the agency’s important work enforcing Title VII in the wake of COVID-19 vaccine mandates happened both silently and too slowly. No longer. Under the Trump Administration, the EEOC is taking bold and aggressive steps to remedy the widespread civil rights harms during the pandemic—the first public fruits of which are reflected below....

It also highlighted initiatives involving religious accommodation for employees, antisemitism in colleges, protection of federal employees' religious rights and the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias.

5th Circuit: Anti-Vax Belief in Bodily Autonomy Can Support Title VII Religious Discrimination Claim

In Wright v. Honeywell International, Inc., (5th Cir., Aug. 5, 2025), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's dismissal of a Title VII religious discrimination suit brought by a dock operator who in 2022 refused to comply with Honeywell's Covid vaccine mandate. Honeywell refused to grant plaintiff a religious exemption on the ground that he did not identify a sincerely held religious belief as the basis for his refusal. The court said in part:

Wright sought a religious exemption from the vaccination policy, citing on his exemption request form his belief that “our creator gave us this gift to choose and decide for ourselves,” and also that it is “in our constitution no man should be forced to do something he . . . is not comfortable with.”  Wright is a Baptist Christian.  He explained that his religion does not “prevent[]” him from receiving the vaccine, “but cert[ai]n passages le[ad him] to feel very strongly about” his decision.  Wright also attested on his exemption request form that he “didn[’]t like the respon[s]e [his] body had” to a tetanus vaccine in 2015.  And he stated that this was the first time that he had sought a religious exemption from a mandatory vaccine. 

Wright also submitted Honeywell’s required third-party attestation of his religious beliefs, completed by his daughter.  Citing scripture, his daughter explained, “It is in our belief that humans should only use things that are created of the earth by God.  We believe the vaccine is a claim of the mark of the beast[;] it is man made and goes against our religion.”...

“Bona fide religious beliefs include ‘moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.’”...

Wright’s evidence demonstrates a “moral or ethical” belief in bodily autonomy and freedom to choose what to put in his body.... The fact that he gave additional reasons for his vaccine refusal does not show that his belief is “merely a preferred practice.”...  Instead, it simply shows that his vaccine refusal is grounded on both religious and non-religious reasons.  Furthermore, the inquiry on this prong is not “whether [Wright’s specific] belief is a true religious tenet” of the Baptist faith, but rather whether the belief is, “in his own scheme of things, religious.”

Cert. Filed In Challenge to Denial of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Kane v. City of New York. (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 7/21/2025). In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of petitioners' applications for religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate imposed by the City of New York on public school teachers and staff. (See prior posting.) The certiorari petition seeking Supreme Court review of the decision describes the question presented in part as follows:

After the pandemic, Respondents issued a vaccine mandate for public-education employees. It exempted “Christian Scientists” and others affiliated with “recognized” religions that “publicly” opposed vaccination. But it refused accommodation for anyone with “personal” religious beliefs or anyone whose faith leader—like Pope Francis— had publicly endorsed the vaccine. 

... In sum, the Second Circuit approved a discretionary religious-accommodation scheme that disfavors personal religion.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Employees' Suit Against School Board for Denying Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Moves Ahead

Decisions in suits by former employees who were denied religious exemptions from employer Covid vaccine mandates continue to be handed down by the courts.  Here is a recent example:

In Brandon v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, (ED MO, May 8, 2025), a Missouri federal district court in a 76-page opinion refused to dismiss 16 employees' free exercise, equal protection, Title VII and state human rights act claims against the St. Louis school board. However, damage claims against the superintendent and the chief human resource officer were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. Plaintiffs all had requested religious exemptions from the Board's Covid vaccine mandate. The Board received 189 requests for religious exemptions from its 3500 employees. None of the requests were granted. The board granted between 40 and 50 disability and medical exemptions. The court said in part:

Defendants have failed to meet their initial summary-judgment burden of showing that no genuine dispute of material fact exists as to Plaintiffs’ sincere religious beliefs....

... [T]he very providing of exemptions rendered the contract not generally applicable because it “‘invite[d]’ the government to decide which reasons for not complying with the policy [were] worthy of solicitude.”...  For these reasons, the Court holds that the strict-scrutiny standard governs here....

Defendants point to three interests that Policy 4624 purportedly served: (1) education, (2) stemming the spread of COVID-19, and (3) promoting “the health, safety, and general welfare of students.”...

Defendants argue that Policy 4624 was necessary to providing “children of any and all backgrounds safe access to education, social mobility, and athletic, cultural[,] and social development.”...  The Court agrees that these interests are compelling. ...

But the Court disagrees that  Defendants have satisfied their summary-judgment burden and proven that Policy 4624 was narrowly tailored to serve those interests....

... [T]he Board could have granted every request for religious exemption, while still granting all the disability and medical exemptions that it granted, and achieved a total employee vaccination rate of between 93.1%  ... and 93.4%.....

In sum, the record at a minimum strongly indicates that the Board denied all religious-exemption requests wholesale, and Plaintiffs thus received vastly different treatment than their comparators did....

Plaintiffs marshal evidence that the Board denied Plaintiffs’ religious-exemption requests because the Board thought that the religious-exemption requests were less important than other exemption requests. With this evidence, Plaintiffs more than show that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether Defendants unlawfully intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs based on Plaintiffs’ protected religious beliefs....

"Religious" Belief Defined Broadly in Title VII Claim

Numerous cases challenging employers' refusal to grant exemptions to Covid vaccine mandates during the height of the Covid epidemic continue to wend their way through the courts. Here is the latest.

In Huber v. TIAA, (WD VA, April 17, 2025), a Virginia federal district court refused to dismiss a former employee's Title VII failure to accommodate claim and allowed the parties to move on to discovery.  The employer had refused to grant a religious accommodation, claiming that the employee's objections were secular, not religious.  According to the court:

... [Plaintiff] subscribes to “a faith based holistic healing process” promoted by the Optimum Health Institute in Southern California....  A page from the Optimum Health Institute’s website, which Huber attaches as an exhibit to the amended complaint, describes the Institute as “a healing ministry of the Free Sacred Trinity Church, which promotes healing through the use of non-medical, all-natural, holistic healing practices.”...

Shortly after Huber filed her amended complaint, the Fourth Circuit clarified that courts evaluating religious discrimination claims should not rigorously examine whether a plaintiff’s beliefs are “religious in nature.”...  It confirmed that courts should limit the inquiry to “whether ‘the beliefs professed . . . are, in the claimant’s own scheme of things, religious[.]’”...  An employee’s claim that her belief “is an essential part of a religious faith must be given great weight” in this analysis....

... [T]his court finds that Huber has plausibly alleged the beliefs she communicated to TIAA were “religious in nature.” Huber’s asserted faith, which “comes from the belief in a universal force and energy” and focuses on holistic healing ... is different than the biblical Christianity employees often invoke when seeking exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine requirements....  But Title VII protects nonconventional as well as conventional religious beliefs—courts “are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them ‘incomprehensible.’...

The amended complaint does not provide a clear or complete account of Huber’s conversation with the TIAA interviewer, and it is possible that later fact development will show she did not communicate an objection that was based on a sincerely held religious belief.  But the court finds that her allegations are sufficient to allow for discovery on this issue....

Appellate Court Upholds $1.2M Fine Against Church for Violating Covid Public Health Orders

In People of the State of California v. Calvary Chapel San Jose, (CA App., April 15, 2025), a California state appellate court affirmed the imposition of administrative fines totaling $1,228,700 on defendant church for violating Covid public health orders requiring face coverings and submission of a social distancing protocol. The court rejected Calvary Chapel's Free Exercise defense. The court said in part:

...  [T]he People have met their burden to establish as a matter of law that the face covering requirements set forth in the orders are neutral and of general applicability, and Calvary Chapel has failed to submit admissible evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of fact. 

First, the text of the revised risk reduction order and the safety measures order shows that these orders are neutral because they are not specifically directed at religious practice, do not discriminate on their face, and religious exercise is not the object of the orders....

Having reviewed the very limited exemptions that Calvary Chapel asserts show that the face covering requirements in public health orders are not of general applicability, we decide that Calvary Chapel has provided no evidence to create a triable question of fact regarding general applicability.

The court also rejected Calvary Chapel's due process claims and additionally held:

... [T]he undisputed facts show that Calvary Chapel’s level of culpability due to violating the public health orders requiring face coverings is high, and therefore the fines in the amount of $1,228,700 do not violate the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment.

3rd Circuit Rejects Title VII Claim by ER Doctor Who Was Denied Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In Bushra v. Main Line Health, Inc., (3d Cir., April 10, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a Title VII suit brought by an emergency room physician who was denied a religious exemption from his hospital's Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Dr. Bushra’s arguments on appeal largely challenge the District Court’s determination that MLH established the undue hardship defense to his religious discrimination claims. ...

MLH provided unrebutted expert testimony that unvaccinated healthcare workers, like Dr. Bushra, presented an increased risk of transmitting COVID-19 to others, particularly when they interacted with vulnerable groups.... [P]atients and employees at MLH died from COVID-19, and the on-site spread of this serious infectious disease compromised MLH’s mission and ability to care for sick patients, and it jeopardized the health and efficacy of its employees and staff.  MLH’s expert additionally testified, contrary to Dr. Bushra’s assertion, that alternative infection control strategies, such as frequent testing and masking, were not sufficient to prevent transmission....

As MLH has presented substantial evidence of undue hardship, and Dr. Bushra has not provided any “actual evidence in the record on which a jury could decide an issue of fact [his] way,” we will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment.

Covid Era Mask Mandate Did Not Violate Free Exercise

In Robol v. City of Columbus, (OH App., March 20, 2025), an Ohio state appellate court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims that the city infringed his free exercise rights when during the Covid pandemic it required individuals to wear a mask in public spaces.  The court said in part:

Ordinance 1643-2020, the City’s mask ordinance, required all persons to wear a mask in public spaces.  The ordinance did not regulate, or even mention, any religious activity, religious creed, or religious affiliation.  Thus, the face mask policies Mr. Robol challenges are both neutral and generally applicable....

Despite the general applicability and neutrality of the mask ordinance, Mr. Robol nonetheless asserts the City violated his rights under the Free Exercise Clause because the ordinance violated his Christian beliefs, forced him to worship a false god, and had the effect of mocking the tenets of his faith.  Though we do not question the sincerity of Mr. Robol’s interpretation of his religion, we are mindful that a government action is not unconstitutional merely because it incidentally burdens religious practices.

Mr. Robol also brought a religious exercise claim under 42 U.S.C. 2000bb, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act....

Not every imposition on religious exercise is a substantial burden....

Without doubting the sincerity of Mr. Robol’s belief that wearing a face mask violates his religious beliefs, we note that Mr. Robol does not allege, much less demonstrate through Civ.R. 56 evidence, that the face mask policies imposed any more than a mere inconvenience to his religious beliefs.....

Mr. Robol argues the City’s face mask requirement violated his freedom of speech and expression because the choice not to wear a face mask is a form of expressing his opposition to the City’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The City’s mask ordinance is content-neutral, and nothing in the terms of the ordinance suggests the purpose is to regulate speech.  And we agree with appellees the face mask policy promotes an important governmental interest in controlling the spread of COVID-19 that is unrelated to the suppression of speech.....

DC Circuit Revives Contempt Proceedings in RFRA Suit Against Fire Department

In Calvert v. Potter, (DC Cir., Jan. 28, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded to the district court a suit by a group of D.C. firefighters who claim that the D.C. Fire Department violated an injunction issued in 2007 vindicating their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The injunction required the Department to allow firefighters who wore beards for religious reasons to work in field operations. However, 13 years later the situation became more complex, as the D.C. Circuit explained:

As COVID-19 spread in March 2020, the Department implemented a new facial hair policy and mandated the use of masks during patient contact. The Department transferred the four bearded firefighters it still employed to administrative roles “due to concerns about their ability to properly wear N95 respirators with facial hair.”...

The district court denied the motion for civil contempt.... The court declined to hold the Department in contempt because it “acted in a reasonably cautious way, under unprecedented and extraordinary circumstances, to keep plaintiffs and the public it served as safe as it could.”...

The Court of Appeals rejected the district court's conclusion: 

Good-faith compliance may be relevant to mitigation at the remedies stage, but the court lacks discretion to excuse civil contempt based on the contemnor’s good faith. ... 

The firefighters had a private right to enforcement of the original injunction, which protected their religious freedom and permanently forbade the Department from enforcing the 2005 facial hair policy against them. The district court had no general discretion to excuse civil contempt.... 

Instead, the court was required to determine whether the Department violated the firefighters’ rights under the 2007 injunction.... Even if the Department’s behavior was reasonable in light of the pandemic, good faith and lack of willfulness is not a defense to civil contempt....

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

Executive Orders Call for Military Reinstatement of Vaccine Objectors, Military Exclusion of Transgender Individuals

Yesterday, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled Reinstating Service Members Discharged Under the Military's Covid-19 Vaccination Mandate (full text). The Order reads in part:

The vaccine mandate was an unfair, overbroad, and completely unnecessary burden on our service members.  Further, the military unjustly discharged those who refused the vaccine, regardless of the years of service given to our Nation, after failing to grant many of them an exemption that they should have received.  Federal Government redress of any wrongful dismissals is overdue.

The Executive Order calls for reinstatement with back pay for those who left the service rather than be vaccinated.  Many service members who refused vaccination did so on religious grounds.

Yesterday, the President also issued an Executive Order titled Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness (full text) which ordered the military to revise its Medical Standards for Military Service to exclude transgender individuals from service in the military. The Executive Order reads in part:

Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false “gender identity” divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.  Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.  A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member....

It is the policy of the United States Government to establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.  This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria.  This policy is also inconsistent with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.

Kansas Court Says Statute Sets Low Threshold for Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In St. Luke's Health System, Inc. v. State of Kansas ex rel. Schultz, (KS App., Jan. 17, 2025), a Kansas state appeals court held that under a Kansas statute, an employee's request for a religious exemption from an employer's Covid vaccine mandate does not require as much proof as the trial court in the case demanded.  The appeals court said in part:

The statute does not require the employee to articulate a basis for their sincerely held religious beliefs, nor does it require the employee to provide written evidence of those religious beliefs, as the district court held Glean was required to do. It only requires the employee to explain in a written statement that complying with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, which Glean did. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663(a). And, in fact, the statute specifies:  "An employer shall grant an exemption requested in accordance with this section based on sincerely held religious beliefs without inquiring into the sincerity of the request." K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663(b)....

Not only did she [employee Sheryl Glean] explain that her refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine is based on her religious views—as in she believes the vaccine may cause harm to her body—she clarified the religious basis for her concern (or why she believes getting the vaccine would be wrong) when she said since she became a Christian she believes the Bible tells her that her body is holy. See 1 Corinthians 6:19-20..... Glean further evidenced the religiosity of her beliefs when she stated that she had discussed her concerns about getting the vaccine with the pastor from her church. Glean's invocation of both the Bible and her pastor as sources of guidance in this matter evidence the religiosity of her beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine.

1st Circuit Accepts Employer's Undue Hardship Defense for Denying Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccination

In Rodrique v. Hearst Communications, Inc., (1st Cir., Jan. 17, 2025), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a Title VII lawsuit brought by a TV news photographer who asserted religious objections to his employer's Covid vaccine mandate. The employer refused to provide an accommodation, asserting that it would impose an undue hardship. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claim on the ground that his objection was not religious but instead reflected "a personal medical judgment about the necessity of COVID-19 vaccination" expressed in religious language. On appeal, the 1st Circuit held that it did not have to reach the issue of whether plaintiff's objections were religious because defendant had adequately carried its undue hardship defense. The court said in part:

Rodrique contends that Hearst has not proffered admissible evidence showing that the vaccine actually protects against the transmission of COVID-19.  As Rodrique frames the issue, if the vaccine does not reduce the likelihood of COVID-19 transmission -- as opposed to merely mitigating symptoms, for example -- then Hearst suffers no undue hardship by granting him an exemption.  And in Rodrique's view, only expert testimony can support this conclusion.,,,  

,,, [W]e disagree with Rodrique that Hearst did not provide legally sufficient evidence....  Because ... Hearst relied "on the objective, scientific information available to [it]," with particular attention to "the views of public health authorities," we hold that it acted reasonably when it determined that vaccinated employees are less likely to transmit COVID-19 than unvaccinated employees.

Business Insurance reports on the decision.

4th Circuit: Covid Vaccine Religious Accommodation Suit Should Not Have Been Dismissed

 In Barnett v. INOVA Health Care Services, (4th Cir., Jan. 7, 2025), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Title VII and state law claims by a former registered nurse who was denied a religious exemption or accommodation from her employer's Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Barnett has sufficiently alleged her beliefs are religious in nature.  Specifically, Barnett alleged, amongst other things:  (1) “it would be sinful for her to engage with a product such as the vaccination after having been instructed by God to abstain from it”; (2) her “religious reasons for declining the covid vaccinations. . . were based on her ‘study and understanding of the Bible and personally directed by the true and living God’”; and (3) receiving the vaccine would be sinning against her body, which is a temple of God, and against God himself....  At this stage, these allegations are sufficient to show that Barnett’s “belief is an essential part of a religious faith” that “must be given great weight[,]” ... and are plausibly connected with her refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

EEOC Sues Employer for Refusal to Grant Religious Accommodation to Covid Vaccine Mandate

The EEOC announced yesterday that it had filed a Title VII lawsuit against the North Carolina-based Rex Healthcare, Inc. for refusing to grant a religious accommodation to an employee who objected to receiving the Covid vaccination.  According to the EEOC:

[I]n 2021 Rex Healthcare implemented a policy mandating that all employees receive a COVID-19 vaccination unless they were granted an exemption because of their religious beliefs or a disability. The charging party in the EEOC’s suit, who worked remotely, requested a religious exemption in accordance with the policy. Even though the employee had previously been granted an exemption from being required to take the flu vaccination based on her religious beliefs, the request for an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination was denied.

The employee submitted multiple follow up requests with additional explanations of her religious beliefs in support of her request. Despite the employee articulating a sincerely held religious belief, Rex Healthcare denied the employee’s accommodation requests and subsequently fired her for failing to comply with the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Hospital Employee's Vaccine Objections Were Religious

In Lavelle-Hayden v. Employment Dept., (OR App., Dec. 18, 2024), an Oregon state appellate court held that a hospital respiratory therapist who was denied a religious exemption from the hospital's Covid vaccine requirement should receive unemployment benefits. It held that the state Employment Appeals Board's (EAB) conclusion that the employee's objection to the Covid vaccine was secular or personal in nature, rather than religious, was not supported by substantial evidence. The court said in part:

First, the EAB appears to have overlooked the Supreme Court’s injunction that tribunals ordinarily must refrain from assessing the plausibility of a claim of religious belief, and to have read the record with unreasonable parsimony in view of that standard....

Second, the EAB drew unreasonable inferences from the fact that claimant’s church declined to provide her a letter in support of her exemption request. The EAB inferred that “the fact that claimant’s own religious leader refused to provide a letter weighs to some extent against finding that claimant’s opposition to taking the vaccine was rooted in religion.” The EAB also inferred that the fact “that the leader told claimant it might be ‘too political to get involved’ supports an inference that when claimant asked for the letter, the religious leader regarded claimant’s objection to receiving a vaccine to be based on her political beliefs, not religion.”... But that reasoning ... presupposes that one’s religious beliefs and political beliefs are necessarily mutually exclusive....

... [T]here is no basis on which to sustain the denial of benefits that is consistent with the evidence and Free Exercise Clause.

Court Examines Sincerity and Religiosity of Vaccine Objections

Stynchula v. Inova Health Care Services, (ED VA, Nov. 19, 2024), is another of the dozens of cases working their way through the courts in which employees have asserted religious objections to Covid vaccine mandates, and their employers have refused to accommodate their objections on the ground that the employees' beliefs were either not religious or not sincerely held. Here the court examines objections asserted by two employees (Netko and Stynchula) and says in part:

Inova argues that Netko’s claim fails because his requests for religious exemptions from the COVID vaccine requirement did not assert beliefs that he sincerely held. The Court agrees....

... Netko’s practice with respect to medicines and vaccines developed using fetal cell lines “[was] inconsistent. He puts some medicines in his body, but not others” and thus he has severely contradicted his assertion that he could not receive a COVID-19 vaccine without compromising his religious beliefs.....  

Netko rejects this conclusion in several ways, none of which is compelling. He argues that Inova cannot show that he subjectively knew of the involvement of fetal cells in the medications and vaccinations that he received, when he received them, and because “sincerity is a subjective question pertaining to the party’s mental state,” if Netko received them ignorant of the fact of fetal cell involvement, “that is not behavior that is markedly inconsistent with his stated beliefs.” ... But there is no rule that a subjective mental state cannot be proven by objective circumstantial evidence....

Netko also contends that his failure to consistently raise fetal cell objections is of no consequence because “a finding of sincerity does not require perfect adherence to beliefs expressed by the [plaintiff], and even the most sincere practitioner may stray from time to time.”... But for a self-declared life-long adherent of a belief, like Netko, such a principle does not mean that sincerity is evident when he strays one hundred percent of the time until one day, he ostensibly decides to outwardly manifest his belief.

... Netko’s assertion that his religion prevented him from taking such vaccines “appears to have been newly adopted only in response to the demand that [he] take the COVID-19 vaccine,”... which is consistent with his general hostility to authority with respect to the COVID pandemic as a whole....

Inova asserts that Stynchula’s claim must fail because her vaccine exemption requests reflect beliefs that are secular, rather than religious, in nature....

Stynchula has not presented facts that show her vaccine-related beliefs are religious....   She states that her fetal cell line objections are grounded in her Catholic upbringing, whereas she joined the Church of Scientology in 2001.... And, the connection between her Scientological beliefs and her vaccination objections is undeveloped except to the extent that she objected to COVID vaccinations as “foreign substances” on the basis of the “axiom” of “Self Determinism” ...  and the idea that “the spirit alone may save or heal the body”... But these simply “seek[] a religious objection to any requirement with which [Stynchula] disagrees” and do not concern religious beliefs.... They are, rather, “isolated moral teaching[s]” in lieu of a “comprehensive system of beliefs about fundamental or ultimate matters.”...

Relatedly, Stynchula’s statements and conduct “only reinforce[] that her opposition stems from her medical beliefs.” ... She believes that her “body is a gift from God” and objects to vaccinations because “[she] do[es] not believe in injecting foreign substances unless there is a therapeutic reason”... and because they would “impact [her] relationship with God” and “would be a sin, as it goes against [her] deeply felt convictions and the answers [she] ha[s] received in prayer”....

... Stynchula does not review medication and vaccine information with an eye towards religious mandates or prohibitions. That is, her search is not to ensure that a specific substance is not present in her medications, or that certain religious procedures have been followed. She simply engages in a cost-benefit analysis of vaccines and medications rooted in her personal concerns over their safety and efficacy. Attaching a gloss of “general moral commandment[s],” such as beliefs in personal liberty or that the body is a temple, to these concerns cannot alone render them religious.