Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Mass.: Nursing home defeats disability discrimination suit over COVID-19 accommodation, (Jul 18, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

A Massachusetts court granted summary judgment to Ellis Nursing Home, concluding the employer engaged in a good faith effort to accommodate an unvaccinated employee during the COVID-19 pandemic and did not violate disability discrimination laws.

A federal court has dismissed a disability discrimination lawsuit brought against Ellis Nursing Home, also known as Ellis Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, by a former activity director who had sought a medical exemption from the facility’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement. The Massachusetts court held that Ellis provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the former employee’s termination and that no reasonable jury could find the decision was driven by unlawful bias (Hines v. Ellis Nursing Home, Inc., No. 23-cv-10874-DJC (D. Mass. July 14, 2025)).

Vaccination mandate leads to accommodation dispute. The dispute stemmed from policies implemented by Ellis in response to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health’s (DPH) August 2021 emergency order, which required all nursing home staff to be vaccinated against COVID-19 unless medically exempt. After receiving a medical exemption, the employee refused to cooperate with efforts by Ellis to reduce her movement across units as required by updated DPH guidance. The court found that Ellis initiated a good-faith interactive process to explore accommodations but that the employee’s refusal to participate constructively warranted dismissal of the case.

Employment and exemption background. Ellis hired the employee in 2011 to serve as an activity director, a role governed by DPH regulations and requiring direct interaction with residents and staff. Amid the pandemic, Ellis imposed various safety protocols and adopted a policy requiring employee vaccination, allowing for medical or religious exemptions. The employee applied for and was granted a medical exemption in early September 2021.

Later that month, Ellis leadership approached the employee about whether she would be willing to work occasional weekend shifts as a COVID-19 screener. She declined, and the employer did not require her to accept the assignment or penalize her for refusing. Around the same time, DPH issued updated guidance recommending that unvaccinated staff not move between units or floors to minimize the risk of infection.

Failure to engage in the interactive process. In October 2021, Ellis held a meeting with the employee to explore ways to comply with the DPH restrictions while maintaining her employment. The facility’s administrator and human resources director suggested performing resident interviews remotely and requested an estimate of how much time she spent on the floor versus in her office. The employee rejected the idea of using FaceTime for interviews, declined to offer alternative solutions, and refused to provide information about her daily responsibilities. She ended the meeting abruptly, telling Ellis it could terminate her if it chose to do so. Ellis discharged her two days later.

Court applies McDonnell Douglas framework. The court evaluated the disability discrimination claim under the burden-shifting framework established by McDonnell Douglas. At the first step, the court found that the employee satisfied the elements of a prima facie case. She had a disability, was qualified for her position, and was terminated roughly one month after receiving her medical exemption—evidence sufficient to support an inference of discriminatory animus at the summary judgment stage.

However, the employer offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination: the employee’s refusal to engage in the interactive process necessary to identify accommodations consistent with public health guidance. The record showed that Ellis attempted to find workable solutions to allow the employee to continue in her role, but she failed to meaningfully participate in those efforts.

No evidence of pretext. The employee contended that her termination was pretextual and based on her vaccination status. However, she admitted in her deposition that no one at Ellis demanded she receive the vaccine or took disciplinary action against her for being unvaccinated. The court found no evidence that the employer’s stated reasons were false or that they masked unlawful discrimination. The employee’s speculation was insufficient to create a triable issue of fact. The court also declined to consider statements allegedly made during a state unemployment hearing, noting that such statements constituted inadmissible hearsay and were not part of the summary judgment record.

Reasonable accommodation claim also fails. To the extent the complaint also alleged a failure-to-accommodate theory, the court held that claim similarly failed. The undisputed evidence showed that Ellis initiated an interactive process and made concrete suggestions to keep the employee in her role while complying with DPH rules. The employee, however, declined to consider alternatives, refused to answer questions necessary for crafting an accommodation, and ultimately walked out of the meeting. The court concluded that this breakdown in communication was due to the employee’s unwillingness to cooperate and that Ellis could not be held liable under either federal or state law.

Court grants summary judgment in full. The court granted summary judgment to Ellis on the remaining claim under both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B. It declined to address the employer’s alternative arguments regarding undue hardship, finding them unnecessary given the outcome. Earlier in the litigation, the court had dismissed the plaintiff’s retaliation and constitutional claims, narrowing the case to a single theory of disability discrimination.

The case is No. 23-cv-10874-DJC.

Judge: Casper, D.

Attorneys: Joseph Spinale (Chambers Law) for Sharon M. Hines. Gary J. Lieberman (Littler Mendelson) for Ellis Nursing Home, Inc.

Companies: Ellis Nursing Home, Inc.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Covid19 MassachusettsNews