In Passarella v. Aspirus Hospital, Inc., and Bube v. Aspirus Hospital, Inc., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appellate court with jurisdiction over Illinois) ruled that employees who sought and were denied religious exemptions to their employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate could proceed with their claims of religious discrimination.
In November 2021, the employer (a hospital system in Wisconsin) announced a requirement that all employees receive a COVID-19 vaccination, with the caveat that employees could seek a religious exemption. The employees involved in these lawsuits each sought religious exemptions. In Passarella, the two plaintiff employees articulated both religious and secular reasons for not wanting to take the vaccine. For instance, one employee referenced her identity as a Christian and noted that she had “prayed about this and have asked GOD for guidance and believe that HE is with me on this decision.” However, she also noted secular reasons, saying that she felt the vaccine was “developed in a rush” and that she didn’t “trust the information and long-term effects.” The other employee in Passarella similarly referenced both religious and secular reasons for objecting to the vaccine. Indeed, she referenced both a secular safety fear that “the vaccines could pose a danger to my body in the form of blood clots or heart inflammation,” and, from a religious angle, she cited to passages from the Bible and stated that she must “trust God with my body (His temple) and that he will provide for me and protect me[.]” Additionally, in the Bube case, one employee cited to her Catholic faith as a reason supporting her request for a religious exemption but also noted non-religious safety concerns about the vaccine.
The employer denied each of these employees’ requests for religious exemptions and later terminated them for failing to comply with the vaccine mandate. The employees subsequently filed lawsuits against the employer alleging religious discrimination, but the trial court dismissed the lawsuits because the employees’ requests for religious exemptions were predominantly based in secular considerations (i.e., safety concerns).
The Seventh Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuits. The court found that the plaintiff employees each articulated some religious basis for seeking an exemption to the vaccine mandate, in addition to secular objections to the mandate. Therefore, the employees could plausibly allege religious discrimination based on the employer’s treatment of them after they objected to the mandate. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the employees were not required to connect their personal religious objections to any specific religious teaching or practice that was inconsistent with taking the vaccine. Moreover, the fact that the employees also referenced secular considerations in seeking a religious exemption did not transform the exemption requests from religious to non-religious. Nor did it matter whether the exemption requests were based more on secular considerations than religious considerations. According to the Seventh Circuit, the key point was whether the requests for exemptions were based, at least in part, on “some aspect” of the employees’ religious beliefs. In these cases, the court found that all the employees’ requests met this standard, and therefore the lawsuits could proceed. (The Seventh Circuit did not find that the employer discriminated against these employees. Rather, the court only concluded that the employees had plausibly alleged religious discrimination based on the allegations in the lawsuits, and, therefore, the lawsuits could proceed to the next stage of litigation.)
These cases are important because they demonstrate that employers must tread carefully when presented with an employee’s request for an accommodation that may have even a slight religious tinge. As noted above, it does not matter if an employee’s purported religious accommodation request is not connected to a particular religion’s teaching or dogma. It also does not matter whether a religious motive for an accommodation request is mixed with — or even outweighed by — secular motives. Under the new standard articulated by the Seventh Circuit, so long as the request for an accommodation is based at least in part on “some aspect” of an employee’s religious beliefs, the employer will need to meaningfully consider whether the accommodation can be provided without unduly burdening the employer’s business.
For questions about this case or employee accommodation requests, please contact any attorney in our Labor/Personnel Practice Group.
Sources:
