Cases & Developments

Memorandum and order denying in part and granting in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former landscaper for Boston College brought Title VII claims of religious discrimination against the College following his termination after he refused to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Plaintiff also brought a myriad of other claims alleging the College discriminated against him as a “legal immigrant minority,” violated his privacy, made false representations, intended to deceive him, tried to make him resign under duress, and engaged in harassment, coercion, intimidation, discrimination, and retaliation on the basis of medical and sincerely held religious beliefs. During plaintiff’s time with the College, it required all students, faculty, and staff, to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 prior to participating in any on-campus activities related to the 2021-22 academic year, allowing exceptions for legitimate religious and medical reasons. Plaintiff submitted two requests for exemption, the first stating that receiving the vaccine would violate his religious beliefs, and that he did not feel safe having one, alleging it would have an adverse effect on his immune system. After that request was denied, plaintiff submitted a second request, stating he was a believer and descendant of the faith of Bogomils, and such religious faith forbade him from taking the vaccine. This request was also denied, and he was informed that failure to submit proof of vaccination would preclude him from entering campus. He was subsequently prohibited from accessing the College’s campus or his workspace and was terminated thereafter. The court found that plaintiff’s second request adequately notified the College that its vaccination requirement conflicted with his bona fide religious practice. Specifically, the court found that plaintiff’s request conveyed his sincere belief that (1) the vaccine would pose a risk to his health, (2) the vaccination requirements conflicted with a tenet of his faith, and (3) his faith required “adherents to abstain from action that would pose a risk to his health or spiritual wellbeing.” The court concluded that absent an exemption, plaintiff could not comply with the College’s vaccine requirement without either transgressing his religious beliefs or being terminated, which was sufficient at this stage to demonstrate that his religion could be the reason for his later termination. Plaintiff’s other claims were dismissed by the court for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state a claim.   

Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former employee of the University of Kentucky, retired from the University to avoid compliance with its COVID-19 test-or-vaccinate policy. Plaintiff brought claims against the University alleging failure to accommodate religious beliefs and violation of Title VII. In granting summary judgment in favor of the University, the district court held that plaintiff failed to “show that she holds a religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement.” In conducting a de novo review, the Sixth Circuit found plaintiff’s claims reflect her “personal moral code” rather than a sincere religious belief, specifically noting that despite over a year of litigation, plaintiff never identified what her religion was on the record. Thus, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court based on plaintiff’s inability to demonstrate a connection between her religious principles and her allegations that the University’s COVID-19 policies were invasive, manipulative, or coercive.