Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGION—M.D. Tenn.: Employee fired after having medically prescribed abortion revives religious noncomformity claim, (Jan 29, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

She claimed that she was fired for failing to adhere to management’s Mormon beliefs, and a recent Sixth Circuit decision clarified that she did not need to show that having an abortion was a religious belief.

In light of an intervening Sixth Circuit decision clarifying the parameters of religious noncomformity claims, a district court reversed its prior grant of summary judgment against an employee’s Title VII claim alleging that her employer’s leadership operated according with Mormon beliefs and terminated her because they learned that she underwent a medical procedure to terminate her premarital pregnancy. In Amos v. Lampo Group, LLC, the appeals court clarified that religious discrimination may occur when an employer imposes policies based on its religious beliefs which causes an employee to suffer discrimination, and therefore the employee was not required to demonstrate that having an abortion was a religious belief in order to state a Title VII religious discrimination claim (Felts v. National Indoor RV Center, No. 3:22-cv-00531 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 28, 2025)).

Management’s Mormon beliefs. The employee worked as a service advisor at National Indoor RV Center’s Nashville dealership. After she was hired, the dealership’s general manager (GM) informed her that management operated in accordance with Mormon beliefs. She also learned that many employees in the corporate office associated with the Mormon faith and claimed that she frequently worked closely with coworkers who openly shared their Mormon beliefs.

Pregnancy-related procedure. In early May 2021, she discovered she was pregnant and informed the GM. During her first ultrasound appointment, she learned that her uterus had two severe hemorrhages and she and her physician determined that surgery to end her pregnancy was the safest decision. She submitted a leave request to the GM and informed him that she planned to have a pregnancy-related procedure. He granted the request, and she underwent a procedure to terminate her pregnancy on May 27.

Manager’s 911 call discloses abortion. On June 3, she became very ill while at work and asked the finance manager to call an ambulance. The director of sales was also onsite that day and assisted. During the 911 call, the manager stated that the employee had recently had an abortion. Upon hearing this statement, the sales director walked out of the office and did not return.

Hospital visits. The employee had a septic infection resulting from her abortion, and while she was hospitalized her mother communicated her condition to the finance manager and the GM. She was discharged on June 6 and scheduled to return to work on June 9. However, on June 8, she went to the emergency room due to increased bleeding and was instructed to return to work on June 11. During this time, she continued to update the finance manager on her condition.

Terminated. She returned to work on June 11 and provided two doctors’ notes from her hospital visits. That same day, the GM called her into the finance manager’s office and advised her that she was being terminated due to poor job performance. She responded that she believed the only reason she was being fired was because of her pregnancy and abortion.

SJ on religious discrimination claim. The employee sued, alleging claims of sex and religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Pregnant Worker’s Fairness Act. The court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment as to her religious discrimination claim but denied the motion as to her other claims. She now sought reconsideration based on the intervening Sixth Circuit case that she claimed changed controlling law.

“Religious noncomformity.” She pointed to the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in Amos v. Lampo Group, LLC, which involved a plaintiff’s allegations that his termination was based on his failure to submit to the employer’s religious practices and his expression of his own religious beliefs with regard to COVID-19 measures. The Sixth Circuit recognized that “Title VII ‘preclude[s] employers from discriminating against an employee because... the employee fails to comply with the employer's religion,”’ which it referred to as a claim for “religious nonconformity.” The Sixth Circuit rejected the district court’s finding that “[t]he conflict causing the noncompliance must stem from the plaintiff's own religious beliefs,” and ultimately held that the plaintiff pled facts sufficient to state a religious nonconformity claim by alleging that he was fired because he did not share the employer’s religion.

Employer’sreligion at issue. The employee contended that Amos clarified that religious discrimination may occur when an employer imposes policies based on its religious beliefs which causes an employee to suffer discrimination, and therefore she was not required to demonstrate that having an abortion was a religious belief in order to state a Title VII religious discrimination claim. The court agreed.

Amos made clear that the Sixth Circuit was still exploring “the contours of this type of discrimination claim” and considered alternative terms for this claim before settling on the term “religious nonconformity.” Further, Amos recognized that “the focus of the [religious nonconformity] claim is on ‘the religious beliefs of the employer, and the fact that [the employee] does not share them’ – not on the specific religious beliefs of the employee himself.” No Sixth Circuit precedent pre-Amos had made this distinction, explained the district court. Unlike prior precedent, “Amos directly confronts the elements of a religious nonconformity claim under Title VII and makes clear that a religious nonconformity claim exists where an employer terminates an employee for failing to comply with the employer’s religion.”

Triable issue. Moreover, a triable issue existed as to whether the employee was terminated for failing to comply with the employer’s religious belief. She presented evidence that the company informed her that it operated in accordance with Mormon beliefs, that she was absent from work to undergo a procedure to terminate her pregnancy, and that the GM was aware that she planned to have a pregnancy-related procedure. The record also showed that management learned about her abortion after she returned to work and terminated her shortly thereafter, and that she informed the GM during her termination meeting that she believed the only reason she was being fired was because of her pregnancy and abortion.

The case is No. 3:22-cv-00531.

Judge: Campbell, W., Jr.

Attorneys: Emily Costanzo (Employment & Consumer Law Group) for Victoria Felts. Christopher W. McCarty (Lewis Thomason) for National Indoor RV Center.

Companies: National Indoor RV Center

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge TennesseeNews