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.

Jury Questions Remain in Suit by Casino Worker Fired for Refusing Covid Vaccine

In Brown v. MGM Grand Casino, ( ED MI, Nov. 18, 2024), a Michigan federal district court refused to grant summary judgment for either party in a suit by a former warehouse manager for MGM Grand Casino who was fired for refusing to comply with his employer's Covid vaccine mandate. Plaintiff, an Orthodox Apostolic Christian, had applied for a religious accommodation. It was refused. According to the court:

Defendant expressed doubt about the sincerity of Plaintiff’s religious belief.... It also expressed doubt about whether Plaintiff’s belief is religious in nature or purely secular.... Nevertheless, Defendant determined that accommodating Plaintiff would impose an undue burden on Defendant’s operations and denied his request on those grounds....

Defendant cites many non-controlling cases from other Circuits for the proposition that Plaintiff’s objection to the vaccination policy based on his opposition to abortion fails to demonstrate a religious belief, because he does not tie it to a wider religious observance, practice, or outlook....However, the Court is not persuaded by the underlying logic of these cases. Of course, a plaintiff claiming a failure to accommodate is required to demonstrate a connection between their belief and some “religious principle” they follow.... But courts “may not question the veracity of one’s religious beliefs.” ... Thus, a plaintiff need not cite specific tenets of his religion that forbid the contested employment policy or explain how those tenets forbid it. ...

While Plaintiff has demonstrated that his beliefs are religious, it is another question whether his beliefs are sincere....  [T]he factfinder need not take a plaintiff at his word.” ... Defendant has raised several reasons to question Plaintiff’s sincerity, such as the fact that his religious reasoning was not consistent throughout his accommodation request process or in his deposition, or the fact that he described medical reasons for wanting to avoid the vaccine....

Therefore, the Court concludes that material questions of fact remain as to whether Plaintiff has a sincerely held religious belief.

The court also concluded that the employer's undue hardship defense posed a jury question since, among other things, large numbers of workers under collective bargaining agreements were not vaccinated.

2nd Circuit Remands Two Plaintiffs' Claims for Improper Denial of Religious Exemptions from Vaccine Mandate

New Yorkers for Religious Liberty v. City of New York, (2d Cir., Nov. 13, 2024), is a decision on appeals of two cases challenging denials of religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate imposed by the City of New York on public school teachers and staff.  While affirming the dismissal of many of the claims, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated dismissals of claims by two plaintiffs, Natasha Solon and Heather Clark, and remanded their cases to the district court. The court said in part:

If Solon’s initial, denied exemption application reflected her purely personal religious practices, then she has plausibly pleaded that she was improperly denied an accommodation because the old Arbitration Award Standards only allowed “exemption requests . . . for recognized and established religious organizations,” and did not honor exemptions for those whose “religious beliefs were merely personal.” ...  That could present a First Amendment problem.,,,

... [T]he documents Clark submitted ... describe a religious objection to the vaccine because it is a product of development using fetal cell lines and a “differing substance[]” that she may not ingest consistent with her faith....  Nevertheless, the district court dismissed Clark’s claim because “the [Citywide] panel found that her decision to not receive a vaccin[e] was not based on her religious belief, but rather, on nonreligious sources,” a conclusion the district court deemed “entirely proper . . . under Title VII.”... While such a conclusion could indeed be proper and constitutional if the Citywide Panel had a basis for reaching it, Clark’s allegations support the plausible inference that the Panel denied her request solely on the basis of its characterization of her religious objection as too idiosyncratic rather than as not sincerely held or non-religious in nature. 

Given this possibility, Clark has stated a cognizable as-applied claim at this stage.

Court Asks Parties for More Information on Whether Vaccine Mandate Was Generally Applicable

In Rodriguez v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, (ND CA, Nov. 12, 2024), a California federal district court refused to dismiss a suit brought by employees of a public transportation provider who were denied religious exemptions from their employer's Covid vaccine mandate. The court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs on whether or not the vaccine mandate exemption process was generally applicable in order to determine whether to apply strict scrutiny in evaluating plaintiffs' Free Exercise claim. The court said in part:

Although the VTA’s exemption review process did not involve the entirely unfettered discretion that the Supreme Court rejected in Fulton, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that this process contained enough individualized discretion to “permit discriminatory treatment of religion or religiously motivated conduct.” ...

Conversely, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the exemption process was “tied directly to limited, particularized, business-related, objective criteria” such that it was generally applicable.....  Unlike Fulton, no individual here exercised “sole discretion.”....  Instead, the committee rendered decisions as a group based on set criteria.... A reasonable jury could find that the VTA committee exercised a degree of discretion that preserved the policy’s general applicability.

IT Specialist Awarded $12.69M For Denied Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate

 A Michigan federal district court jury last week awarded damages of $12,690,000 to an IT specialist who was fired from her position after she refused for religious reasons to comply with her employer's Covid vaccine mandate. In Domski v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, (ED MI, Nov. 8, 2024) (Jury Form), plaintiff contended that her Catholic religious beliefs precluded her from complying because of the use of fetal cells in the development of the Covid vaccines. Plaintiff had been employed by Blue Cross Blue Shield for 38 years. Law Enforcement Today and WWJ Radio report on the jury verdict.

Firefighters Can Move Ahead With Title VII Claims Over Forced Leave to Accommodate Religious Objections to Covid Vaccine

In Bingham v. City of San Jose, (CA App., Oct. 30, 2024), a California state appeals court held that five San Jose firefighters who were placed on unpaid leave when they asserted religious objections to the Covid vaccine may move ahead with their claims under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Reversing the trial court's dismissal of the suit, the appeals court held in part:

Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that the extended and involuntary unpaid leave allegedly imposed on them was not a reasonable accommodation.  By not requiring plaintiffs to take the COVID-19 vaccines mandated by the County vaccination order, the City eliminated the conflict between the order and plaintiffs’ religious beliefs concerning the COVID-19 vaccines.  However, the alleged unpaid leave did not reasonably preserve plaintiffs’ employment status....

... [T]he amended complaint alleges that the City Fire Department was facing a severe staffing shortage and that a County public health order allowed employers facing such shortages to seek a waiver of the vaccination requirement.  Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that they could have been transferred to positions answering 911 calls, which presumably is not a Higher-Risk Setting and therefore would not have required vaccination under the County vaccination order.  If these allegations are accepted as true, as they must be at the demurrer stage... that would have allowed plaintiffs to work without a vaccination.  Thus, far from establishing the City’s undue hardship defense, the face of the complaint shows that the City could have reasonably accommodated plaintiffs’ beliefs without undue hardship. 

CBN reports on the decision.

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.

Lufthansa Fined $4M For Discrimination Against Jewish Passengers Flying On Pilgrimage To Hungary

On Oct. 7, a Consent Cease-and-Desist Order (full text) was issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation imposing civil penalties of $4 million on the air carrier Lufthansa for religious discrimination against Jewish passengers traveling to Budapest in 2022 to participate in the annual pilgrimage to the shrine of the so-called "miracle rabbi" Yeshaya Steiner (known as Rabbi Shayele). (Background). The airline received a credit for $2 million that it had already paid to passengers.

Some 128 identifiably Orthodox Jewish passengers were on a flight from New York, with a connection in Frankfurt to go on to Budapest. They were all barred from boarding the connecting flight in Frankfurt after some 60 of the passengers refused on the first leg of the flight to comply with the Covid-related requirement to wear masks on the flight and some also gathered in aisles and near exits. The DOT Consent Order said in part:

Lufthansa’s decision to affix an HPC [High Priority Comment] to the reservations of nearly every passenger traveling in a group to Budapest without limiting such affixation to those passengers who Lufthansa verified failed to follow crew instructions on LH 401, which did not comport with Lufthansa’s own boarding procedures, directly resulted in the inability of the passengers to travel on the flights they purchased. As such, Lufthansa took action that had an adverse effect on these passengers whose only affiliation with each other was that they were of the same religion and/or ethnicity. 

Lufthansa’s actions impacted passengers who did not engage in problematic conduct. OACP finds that, under the totality of the circumstances, Lufthansa’s treatment of the 128 Jewish passengers as a collective group, based on the alleged misconduct of a smaller number of those individuals, constitutes discrimination based on religion in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 40127.

DOT issued a press release announcing the Consent Order. AP reported on the Consent Order. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

6th Circuit Finds That Employee's Objections to Covid Testing Were Not Religious

 In DeVore v. University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, (6th Cir., Oct. 11, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit by a former department manager at the University of Kentucky who was denied a religious accommodation that would exempt her from the University's policy that required weekly testing of employees who were not vaccinated against Covid. Plaintiff filed a suit claiming religious discrimination in violation of Title VII. She alleged in part that the University's policy was designed to coerce her to get tested. the court said:

Such coercion, she explained, was “wrong” because “[t]rying to manipulate somebody into doing something to attain a result that you want by holding something over them” is “not right behavior.”...

DeVore drew no connection between her fairness conclusion and any “religious principle” she follows, leaving it simply to reflect her “personal moral code.”... DeVore’s “subjective evaluation” of the Policy against this rubric of “secular values” does not establish a religious conflict with the Policy.

Certiorari Denied in Dispute Over Standing to Challenge Covid Restrictions on Churches

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Grace Bible Fellowship v. Polis, (Docket No. 24-226, certiorari denied 10/15/2024). (Order List). (Certiorari petition). In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (10th Circuit opinion) held that plaintiffs lacked standing to obtain prospective declaratory relief in their challenge to Colorado's authority to impose public health restrictions on houses of worship.

Air Force Officers' Suit Over Vaccine Mandate Is Now Moot

Still working their way through the courts are dozens of cases brought by employees or former employees who were denied religious exemptions from Covid vaccine mandates. One of the more interesting is Air Force Officer v. Austin, (MD GA, Oct. 11, 2024), a class action suit on behalf of Air Force officers who were denied religious exemptions from the military's Covid vaccine mandate. The mandate has been rescinded by the military after Congress ordered it to do so. At issue in the case is whether the lawsuit is now moot. Plaintiffs made two basic arguments against mootness. One is that the government has not shown that the mandate will not be reimposed at some later time. The second is that plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that applies to exemptions from all military vaccine mandates, not just Covid vaccine requirements.  The court rejected both claims. The court said in part:

Understandably so, Plaintiffs and Defendants just disagree whether there is no reasonable expectation that “the same kind of COVID-19 vaccination requirement will be reinstated,” but it can’t be overlooked that “for almost two years now” there hasn’t been any indication that the COVID-19 vaccination mandates will be reinstated. In this Court’s opinion, that’s quite persuasive....

Disclosure of Covid Status to Plaintiff's Pastor Did Not Infringe Privacy or Free Exercise Rights

In Fulmore v. City of Englewood, (NJ App., Aug. 30, 2024), a New Jersey appellate court dismissed a suit brought by an employee of the city's Department of Public Works who contended that his rights were violated when, early in the Covid pandemic, the city's health officer disclosed to plaintiff's pastor that plaintiff was supposed to be under quarantine because of exposure to Covid. Plaintiff, who was an associate minister at a Baptist church, had participated in an in-person recording of a religious service without disclosing to other participants that he was supposed to be in quarantine. the court said in part:

Here, plaintiff's claim that Fedorko violated his constitutional right to privacy when he disclosed plaintiff's quarantine status to Pastor Taylor is unavailing.  Fedorko's disclosure to Pastor Taylor occurred on April 10, 2020, in the context of a public health emergency, where COVID-19 "created an immediate and ongoing public health emergency that require[d] swift action to protect not only the City's employees, but the public they [were] hired to serve....

... "Given the scientifically undisputed risk of spreading this deadly virus," defendants' interest in protecting the public health from potential exposure to COVID-19 outweighed plaintiff's privacy interest in his quarantine status....

Rejecting plaintiff's claim that his religious free exercise rights were violated, the court said in part:

Here, even when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the record is devoid of evidence indicating that Fedorko's disclosure of plaintiff's quarantine status to Pastor Taylor had a "coercive effect" on plaintiff's religious practice....

... At his deposition, plaintiff testified that defendants' actions "changed [his] whole religious belief" and his "whole outlook on church."  He claimed defendants "ruined the relationship" he had had with Pastor Taylor "for the last [twenty-eight] years."...

However, plaintiff acknowledged that since the April 2020 incident, he had not been "barred" from church, nor had he ever received any "texts or messages [from Pastor Taylor] . . . saying [he was not] welcome at the church" or that Pastor Taylor "did[ not] want [plaintiff] to preach there anymore."

Claim That Deprioritizing Religious Vaccine Exemption Requests Violates Title VII Moves Ahead

 In Desmarais v. Granholm, (D DC, Aug. 16, 2024), a D.C. federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII complaint by a Department of Energy employee that his request for a religious exemption from the Department's Covid vaccine mandate was given lower priority than requests for medical exemptions. The court said in part:

 Of course, there could well be a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for such a policy—but that is an inquiry for summary judgment, not for a motion to dismiss.  The court therefore concludes that Mr. Desmarais has plausibly alleged a causal connection between his protected characteristic and DOE’s decision to put his accommodation request “on hold.” 

Delaware Supreme Court Dismisses Suits Challenging Prior Covid Restrictions on Houses of Worship

 In In re Covid-Related Restrictions on Religious Services, (DE Sup. Ct., Aug. 1, 2024), the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the dismissal by two lower courts of challenges to restrictions on houses of worship imposed by orders of Delaware's governor during the early stages of the Covid pandemic. Plaintiffs filed suit in the Chancery Court over 18 months after the restrictions were lifted seeking an injunction, and when that was rejected, filed suit in Superior Court seeking damages and a declaratory judgment. The Delaware Supreme Court said in part:

Plaintiffs could not demonstrate reasonable apprehension of future conduct.  As the Court of Chancery noted below, “[a]lthough it is true that the virus continues to circulate and mutate, the possibility of a future surge, much less one that will necessitate emergency measures on par with what the world experienced in the first half of 2020, is speculative at best.”  Appellants do not confront the speculative nature of the future threat they allege, and instead invoke a generalized refrain that any restriction on their religious freedom causes irreparable harm.  This argument, such that it is, does not address the Court of Chancery’s analysis or carry Appellants’ burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction.  The importance of Appellants’ constitutional rights is not disputed, but it also is not dispositive.  The fact remains that, by the time Appellants filed suit, the Challenged Restrictions had been lifted, the Governor had entered into a binding agreement not to impose future restrictions targeting Houses of Worship, and the apprehension of a future pandemic and conditions like those of the early days of the emergency was hypothetical and speculative.  This Court “decline[s] to render an advisory opinion on a hypothetical scenario.”...

... [T]he Superior Court correctly held that Appellants’ injury could not be redressed through a prospective declaratory judgment.  In much the same way that Appellants’ irreparable harm argument crumbled because the Challenged Restrictions no longer were in effect and any future action imposing similar restrictions was speculative, the declaratory judgment sought in the Superior Court would not alter the status quo.  Moreover, Appellants’ constitutional rights would not be restored or further protected by declaratory relief because the complained-of harm had long since ceased and the threat of future harm was speculative....

The Delaware Supreme Court also concluded that a damage action against the Governor was barred by the Delaware State Tort Claims Act and qualified immunity.

7th Circuit Gives Broad Interpretation of "Religious" Claims Under Title VII

In Passarella v. Aspirus, Inc., (7th Cir., July 29, 2024), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion by Judge Scudder held that a request for a religious accommodation under Title VII may include secular elements. At issue were employees' requests for an exemption from the employer's Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

At the pleading stage, an employee seeking an accommodation in the form of an exemption from an employer’s vaccine mandate must allege facts plausibly permitting an inference that some “aspect[]” of the request is based on the employee’s “religious observance and practice” or “belief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). 

Applying the statutory language necessarily requires an exercise of judgment: the standard is not amenable to formulaic resolution like solving a math equation. To the contrary, its application requires a holistic assessment of the terms of the employee’s exemption request, with the controlling inquiry at the pleading stage being whether the employee plausibly based her vaccination exemption request at least in part on an aspect of her religious belief or practice.  

... An employee may object to an employer’s vaccine mandate on both religious and non-religious grounds—for example, on the view that receiving the vaccine would violate a religious belief and implicate health and safety concerns. Congress permitted this, as we see no other way to give effect to the breadth of its definition of “religion”—as covering “all aspects” of an employee’s religious observance, practice, and belief.... And, for its part, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in implementing this same definition, has likewise emphasized that a religious objection to a workplace requirement may incorporate both religious and secular reasons.... 

Judge Rovner dissented, saying in part:

I recognize that Dottenwhy, in the statements she submitted to Aspirus, invoked her rights as a Christian, said she had prayed about the matter and sought guidance from G-d, and expressed her conviction that “HE is with me on this decision.” ... Without more, such statements are not enough, in my view, to transform an otherwise secular objection to the vaccine into a religiously-based one.... I am not convinced that Congress meant to compel an employer to grant any requested accommodation that an employee has prayed about and has concluded that his or her G-d supports. If that were so, there would be almost no limit to the accommodations that an employer would have to entertain under Title VII’s ban on religious discrimination....

Passarella’s statement came somewhat closer to describing a religious basis for a vaccine exemption, but in the end, I believe that Aspirus correctly understood her objection to the COVID-19 vaccine to be secular rather than religious....

It cannot be enough to state a claim for a religious accommodation to assert that because one’s conscience is G-d given, any decision one reaches in their good conscience is necessarily inspired and endorsed by G-d, and therefore is religious in nature.

In Bube v. Aspirius Hospital, Inc., (7th Cir., July 29, 2024), a different panel of the 7th Circuit, with only Judge Scudder being on both, reversed the dismissal of claims by two employees for religious exemptions from a hospital's Covid vaccine mandate. The court, in a unanimous opinion written by Judge Scudder, said in part:

We have no trouble concluding that both of these requests are based at least in part on an aspect of the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. God “gave” Bube a “mind, body and soul” so that she feels obligated to avoid what she considers unsafe substances in order to remain healthy. And Hedrington was “created … perfectly” by God so that accepting a “risk[y]” vaccine would be a “sin.” ...

Scrutinizing the composition of these requests—especially at the pleading stage—runs counter to not only the broad language of Title VII but also the Supreme Court’s repeated warnings that the law requires a hands-off approach when it comes to defining and discerning the core limits of religious exercise.

3rd Circuit: Jury Issues Remain in Suit Over Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In Spivack v. City of Philadelphia, (3d Cir., July 29, 2024), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal of a suit brought by Rachel Spivack, an Orthodox Jewish employee of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, and remanded the case for trial.  Spivack was dismissed from her position for refusing, on religious grounds, to comply with the Office's Covid vaccine mandate. Spivack contended:

 “[a]ll three available brands of COVID-19 vaccines constitute a profound violation of the scriptural prohibitions against forbidden mixtures,” and that “[i]njecting such forbidden substances directly into our bloodstream completely challenges scriptural teaching that regards one’s body as the repository of the soul made in God’s image.” ...

The appeals court said in part:

There is ... a dispute of material fact as to whether anti-religious hostility tainted the DAO’s treatment of religious exemptions.  That is because a reasonable jury could conclude, based on some evidence in the record, that the DAO’s treatment of religious exemptions reflected “intoleran[ce] of religious beliefs.”...

But Krasner claims that Spivack was disciplined under a later policy—the January 2022 policy, which eliminated the religious exemption altogether and kept only the medical exemption.... 

That Krasner continued to evaluate medical exemption requests under the January 2022 policy does not undermine that policy’s general applicability.  Medical exemptions were a separate and objectively defined category of exemption requests....

The critical question is whether the medical exemptions in these policies are comparable to a religious exemption—in other words, whether the “preferential treatment of secular behavior” in the form of a medical exemption “affect[s] the regulation’s purpose in the same way as the prohibited religious behavior.” ...

Unlike a religious exemption, a medical exemption furthers the DAO’s interest in keeping its employees safe and healthy by allowing employees for whom the COVID-19 vaccine would cause death or illness to abstain from vaccination....

[T]he DAO must show that its policy was narrowly tailored, which “requires the government to demonstrate that a policy is the least restrictive means of achieving its objective.”...

Unanswered factual questions pervade this inquiry.  How many similar exemption requests would the DAO need to grant?  Would other, less restrictive mitigation measures for employees with religious exemptions ... have achieved the office’s objectives?  If strict scrutiny applies, a jury must consider these questions....

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

Company Settles EEOC Suit for $110,000, Compensating Employee Whose Religious Objections to Vaccine Were Ignored

 A national furniture retailer, Hank's Furniture, has settled a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit brought against it by the EEOC. Under a consent decree, Hank's will pay $110,000 in damages and will implement a written policy assuring broad accommodation of religious beliefs that do not impose an undue burden. According to the EEOC's press release:

... [A] former assistant manager at HFI’s Pensacola, Florida, location notified the company that her religious beliefs prevented her from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Rather than discuss the employee’s religious beliefs to determine the feasibility of an accommodation, management ignored accommodation requests then summarily denied the employee’s requests and attempted to dispute the validity of her sincerely-held religious beliefs.

NY Sanitation Worker Can Move Ahead on Failure To Accommodate Anti-Vax Beliefs

Decisions on suits by individuals who were denied religious exemptions from now-rescinded Covid vaccine mandates are still being issued by the courts.  In Rizzo v. New York City Department of Sanitation, (SD NY, July 2, 2024), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII failure to accommodate claim (as well as similar state-law and local-law claims) brought by a New York City sanitation worker. The court rejected the city's arguments that the worker's objections were based on conscience, not religion. It also rejected, at least at this stage of the litigation, the city's argument that accommodation would impose an undue burden on the city.  The court also allowed plaintiff to move forward on his claim that the city failed to engage in cooperative dialogue as required by the New York City Human Rights Law.  However, the court dismissed plaintiff's Title VII disparate impact claim and his 1st Amendment Free Exercise claim.

9th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Suit Challenging Refusal to Grant Religious Exemptions to Vaccine Mandate

 In Bacon v. Woodward, (9th Cir., June 18, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversed a Washington federal district court's dismissal of a suit by firefighters who claim that their free exercise rights were infringed by the city of Spokane refusing to accommodate their religious objections to the Covid vaccine. The majority said in part:

The Complaint alleges that, once unvaccinated firefighters were terminated, Spokane would turn to firefighters from neighboring fire departments to fill the gaps left by the firefighters’ departure even though those fire departments granted religious accommodations to their employees.  In other words, Spokane implemented a vaccine policy from which it exempted certain firefighters based on a secular criterion—being a member of a neighboring department—while holding firefighters who objected to vaccination on purely religious grounds to a higher standard.  The Free Exercise Clause prohibits governments from “treat[ing] comparable secular groups more favorably.”...

 ... [T]he Complaint alleges at least three less restrictive ways that “[t]he Mayor, the Fire Chief, and the City could accomplish its same compelling purpose.”...

Judge Hawkins dissented, saying that rational basis review should apply:

The complaint alleges that the City Defendants applied the Proclamation to their employees uniformly and treated medical and religious objectors the same.  The complaint also alleges that other cities and entities adopted different policies and the City Defendants had pre-existing mutual aid agreements with some neighboring fire departments.  The complaint then predicts that, as a result of those pre-existing mutual aid agreements, some unvaccinated firefighters from neighboring departments may operate within the City of Spokane.  In my view, these allegations are insufficient to plausibly show that the Proclamation, as implemented by the City Defendants, is not neutral or generally applicable.