Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—4th Cir.: Humane Society workers, fired after refusing COVID-19 vaccination, revive claims, (Nov 21, 2025)

By Todd Harrison

The employees plausibly alleged that their beliefs were an essential part of their religious faith, and they connected those beliefs to their refusal to receive the vaccine.

Reversing a district court’s dismissal of Title VII religious discrimination claims brought by two former Humane Society employees, the Fourth Circuit reaffirmed its recent holding in Barnett v. Inova Health Care Servs., 125 F.4th 465 (4th Cir. 2025), wherein it clarified the requirements to state a Title VII religious discrimination claim in the vaccine mandate context. In this instance, the employees successfully pleaded a sincere religious belief that conflicted with the Humane Society’s vaccine mandate, and the district court erred in concluding that they failed to do so. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of their ADA discrimination claims, noting that an inquiry into vaccination status does not constitute a medical examination, and a person’s status as “unvaccinated” cannot support a “regarded as” claim ( Finn v. Humane Society of the United States , No. 24-1416 (4th Cir. Nov. 20, 2025)).

Vaccine mandate. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Humane Society implemented an organization-wide vaccine mandate. It notified employees that they could seek a religious or medical exemption, but that it would fire those who did not comply.

Religious exemption requests. The two employees who brought this case requested religious exemptions. One objected to the use of a product containing fetal cells or deriving from testing using fetal cells, and that “accepting this vaccine would compromise the religious beliefs founded in [her] Christian upbringing that fetuses are individuals and did not consent to the use of their bodies in medical testing or production.”

According to the other employee, receiving the vaccine would “betray[]” her “conscience and faith.” She cited Catholic teachings that she said aligned with her faith, emphasizing the importance of following one’s conscience.

After speaking with the employees about their religious beliefs, the Humane Society denied their exemption requests and fired them.

Lawsuit. Subsequently, the employees filed this lawsuit, asserting Title VII religious discrimination claims, and ADA disability discrimination claims for inquiring into their vaccination status and for regarding unvaccinated employees as disabled and allegedly firing them for that reason.

The district court granted the Humane Society’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court, without the benefit of the Fourth Circuit’s guidance in Barnett , concluded that the employees “failed to adequately plead that their objections to the COVID-19 vaccine were based on religious beliefs.” The court also dismissed the employees’ ADA discrimination claims. This appeal followed.

Beliefs linked. First addressing the employees’ religious discrimination claims, the court found that, at the pleading stage, the allegations of one employee that she held a religious objection to the use of vaccines developed using aborted fetal cells, and the other stating that taking the vaccine would betray and her conscience and faith while citing Catholic teachings, was enough to show that their beliefs were an essential part of their religious faith.

Agreeing with other circuits, the court explained that a person need not explain how any particular tenet or religious principle prohibited vaccination, finding that the law only requires a person to plausibly allege that their refusal to be vaccinated derives from an aspect of their religious practices or beliefs, a requirement that both employees met in this case.

It bears emphasis, continued the court, that an employee must eventually offer evidence of the sincerity of their religious belief, whether at summary judgment or at trial. The court declined to speculate how the employees in this case would fare as their case progressed, but for now it was enough that they pleaded a sincere religious belief that conflicted with the vaccine mandate, and the district court had erred in concluding that they failed to do so.

ADA claims. Turning to the employees’ ADA claims, they contended that the Humane Society had no valid reason under the Act to inquire into their vaccination status, especially because they worked remotely. However, the court found this argument to be fatally flawed, explaining that an employer’s inquiry into an employee’s vaccination status is not a disability-related inquiry. Whether a person is vaccinated has no bearing on their ability to engage in major life activities, said the court.

The employees’ “regarded as” claims fared no better. Being unvaccinated is not a physical or mental impairment and therefore cannot support a “regarded as” claim, concluded the Fourth Circuit, affirming the district court’s dismissal of the ADA claims.

The case is No. 24-1416.

Judge: Diaz, A.

Attorneys: Francis J. Collins (Law Offices of Francis J. Collins) for Jennifer Finn and Katherine Muldoon. Karla Grossenbacher (Seyfarth Shaw) for Humane Society of the United States.

Companies: Humane Society of the United States

MainStory: TopStory Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination ReligiousDiscrimination Discharge Covid19 MarylandNews NorthCarolinaNews SouthCarolinaNews VirginiaNews WestVirginiaNews GCNNews