Cases & Developments

Memorandum granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a former employee of the University of Texas at Dallas, proceeding pro se, brought discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims against the University and multiple officials after she objected to the University’s COVID-19 testing requirement on religious grounds and was terminated after she exhausted available leave time.  Plaintiff asserted that she practiced “faith-based decision making and not fear-based decision making” and that the University’s offer of a saliva test as an alternative to a nose swab was not an appropriate accommodation.  Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court permitted her Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim to proceed against the University, holding that whether an accommodation of plaintiff’s beliefs would have imposed an undue hardship is a fact-intensive inquiry better resolved at the summary judgement stage or at trial.  It dismissed her ADA claim for failure to allege she was a qualified individual with a disability.

Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a former employee of Penn State University, sued the University after it terminated him for noncompliance with its COVID-19 vaccination policy requiring employees to show proof of vaccination or submit to testing and mask while on campus.  Plaintiff alleged that his supervisors were critical of his religious beliefs during his termination process.  The court dismissed his Due Process claim, finding that he had insufficiently alleged either publication of a substantial and materially false statement or possible loss of future employment opportunities to meet a stigma-plus test for deprivation of a liberty interest.  It dismissed his Fourth Amendment unreasonable search claim regarding the testing requirement, finding he had not shown that the University’s legitimate public health interests during a pandemic were outweighed by his reasonable expectation of privacy.  It dismissed his Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) claim, finding he failed to allege that the University’s testing process was used for anything other than to detect COVID-19 or that he was classified in any way based on his genetic information. 

Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former head football coach at Washington State University, brought discrimination and contract claims against the University and its Athletics Director after he was terminated following denial of his COVID-19 vaccine religious exemption request. Plaintiff’s contract provided for liquidated damages of 60% of his base salary for the term of the agreement in the event of termination without just cause. In permitting plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claim to proceed against the University, the court held that (1) he sufficiently pleaded that his Catholic faith informed his decision not to receive the vaccine and (2) the University’s assertions that his decision resulted in lost donations and negative press were insufficient at this stage to support an undue hardship finding. It permitted his contract claim to proceed, finding that whether the University had just cause for his termination similarly depended upon its evidence of undue hardship. It dismissed his religious discrimination claim against the Athletics Director under §1983, however, finding that the Director participated in the exemption review process as outlined in University policy and that this policy permitted a supervisor to question the sincerity of an employee’s asserted religious beliefs.