Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—1st Cir.: Patient safety professional, fired for COVID vaccine noncompliance, stated religious discrimination claim, (Jan 17, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

She said she had not received a vaccine in at least 20 years.

A former associate patient safety director for Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., fired after her request for a religious exemption from the company’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement was denied, stated a claim of religious discrimination under Title VII and Massachusetts law, the First Circuit found. Although her federal constitutional and Massachusetts Declaration of Rights claims were properly dismissed, she adequately pleaded a bona fide religious belief that conflicted with the requirement, according to the appeals court. Among other things she alleged that “her faith requires her to maintain a pure body and soul,” and that receiving the vaccine would “jeopardize [her] soul... by defiling [her] perfectly created body that [God] created in His image…” (Thornton v. Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 23-1951 (1st Cir. Jan. 16, 2025)).

Vaccination policy. On September 7, 2021, Ipsen implemented a policy requiring its employees to become “fully vaccinated” against COVID-19 by November 1, 2021. Pursuant to the terms of the vaccination policy, employees would be “considered fully vaccinated for COVID-19 two weeks after [the employee] ha[d] received the second dose in a two-dose series (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) or two weeks after they ha[d] received a single-dose vaccine (Johnson and Johnson/Janssen).” Employees who failed to provide timely proof of vaccination were subject to termination for cause.

Religious exemption procedure. The policy provided a procedure by which employees could request a religious exemption from the vaccination. To do so, an employee needed to submit an accommodation request form accompanied by “a written statement describing [their] sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance and how it conflict[ed] with... receiving the COVID-19 vaccination.” Ipsen reviewed all such “requests on a case-by-case basis.”

Accommodation request. The employee, who at the time was employed by Ipsen as Associate Director - Patient Safety, sought a religious exemption from the vaccination requirement on October 26, 2021. In her accommodation request form, she said, among other things, “Receiving a vaccine (including the [COVID-19] vaccine) goes against my personal, private and sincerely held religious beliefs. Therefore, I am requesting a reasonable accommodation based on my religious convictions. My long-standing beliefs are sincerely held and firmly established in my faith, the Holy Bible and my awareness that what God has created is perfect.”

Denial and attempted appeal. Ipsen denied her request, and though the vaccination policy did not provide for an internal appeal process, she nonetheless tried to appeal the denial by submitting a letter to Ipsen on November 5, 2021.

Additional detail. In the letter, she elaborated, “I demonstrate my sincerely held religious beliefs not only in how I think, but in how I live my life every day. God requires me to follow His Word and His Teachings so that I may live in Grace and have eternal salvation. In practicing my faith, which requires me to keep my body and soul pure to God’s standard as He created, I follow God’s word by... [p]raying to God.... God does not make mistakes and I am created in His image and defying what He has created is a sin and morally wrong.... I have not received a vaccine in at least twenty years. Through much prayer and listening to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it would violate my sincerely held religious beliefs and jeopardize my soul and eternal salvation to go against God by defiling my perfectly created body that He created in His image by receiving the vaccine. This is the way I choose to interpret God’s Word; the messages I have received from God; and is my own personal translation of His teachings.”

Discharge. Ipsen made no decision regarding this letter, nor did the plaintiff comply with the vaccination requirement. As a result, Ipsen fired her on November 10, 2021.

EEOC charge and lawsuit. Six days later, the employee filed a religious discrimination charge with the EEOC, which dismissed the charge and issued a right-to-sue letter on August 30, 2022. She then filed suit in Massachusetts Superior Court. Ipsen removed the case to federal district court and, a week later, moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Decision below and appeal. On October 26, 2023, a federal magistrate judge granted Ipsen's motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and dismissed her second amended complaint in its entirety. She appealed to the First Circuit.

Religious discrimination claims. Turning first to the employee’s religious discrimination claims under Title VII and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B § 4(1A), the First Circuit observed that it must discern whether she asserted facts from which it could infer (1) that she has beliefs that are religious and sincerely held, and (2) that the employer imposed upon her an employment requirement that (3) conflicted with those beliefs and (4) “was the reason for the adverse employment action.”

There was little dispute that the employee alleged facts sufficient to establish elements two and four, and Ipsen did not contend that any defense it has is clearly meritorious based on the allegations in the second amended complaint. “The crux of this dispute,” according to the appeals court was rather “whether [she] adequately pleaded a bona fide religious belief that conflicted with the vaccination requirement.

Conflicting bona fide religious belief. Here, the court found that her allegations, and the inferences it must draw from them, “plausibly support that some aspect of her accommodation request is based on her religious observance, practice, or belief.”

The First Circuit’s conclusion was “buttressed” by its own recent decision in Bazinet v. Beth Israel Lahey Health, Inc., in which the appeals court found sufficient allegations of similar religious beliefs. She alleged that she holds certain religious beliefs that conflicted with the vaccination requirement—namely, that the tenets of her religion prohibited her from defiling her perfectly created body, and that her prayers and guidance from the Holy Spirit informed her beliefs that receiving the COVID-19 vaccine would violate that tenet of her faith. And she further alleged that prayer is one of the ways in which she “follow[s] God’s word”—including the commandment to not defile one’s body.

Thus, concluded the appeals court, the employee plausibly alleged that her belief that the vaccine would defile her body is not an “isolated moral teaching,” but rather part of a “comprehensive system of beliefs about fundamental or ultimate matters” that she articulated. “At this nascent stage of the litigation, [she] need allege no more facts – nor more specific ones – to show that she holds sincere religious beliefs that conflicted with the vaccination requirement.”

Federal constitutional claims. The employee’s federal constitutional claims, however, alleging that Ipsen violated her rights to equal protection, substantive due process, and procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, were properly dismissed because Ipsen is a private actor, against whom the Fourteenth Amendment “erects no shield.” And her argument that Ipsen is a proper defendant for these Fourteenth Amendment claims because it was allegedly coerced to act by the federal government failed because the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the federal government.

Massachusetts Declaration of Rights claim. Her Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (MDR) claim was also properly dismissed, according to the First Circuit, because she developed no argument to contest the magistrate judge’s holding that the MDR does not provide a private cause of action.

The case is No. 23-1951.

Judge: Gelpí, G.

Attorneys: Richard Cullin Chambers, Jr. (Law Offices of Richard Cullin Chambers, Jr.) for Regina M. Thornton. Michael Lenzi (WilmerHale) for Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.

Companies: Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge StateLawClaims Covid19 MaineNews MassachusettsNews NewHampshireNews PuertoRicoNews RhodeIslandNews GCNNews