Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—4th Cir.: Nurse, fired after refusing COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds, revives claims, (Jan 8, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

She had sufficiently alleged religious discrimination for all three of her claims at the motion to dismiss stage.

Reversing a district court’s dismissal of a nurse’s claims alleging failure to accommodate religious beliefs and disparate treatment under Title VII, as well as disparate treatment under the Virginia Human Rights Act, the Fourth Circuit determined that she had met the threshold to survive a motion to dismiss. She had expressed a sincere belief in her Christian faith and had sufficiently alleged that her beliefs were religious in nature. Further, her allegations that an exemption committee picked “winners and losers” among those who had requested a religious exemption from her employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate based on whether they found those beliefs legitimate was enough to state a claim for disparate treatment (Barnett v. INOVA Health Care Services, No. 24-1271 (4th Cir. Jan. 7, 2025)).

In July 2021, INOVA instituted its first COVID-19 vaccine policy. In response to this policy, the nurse who brought this suit requested and was granted a medical exemption related to lactation. In December 2021, INOVA revised its policy to require all employees to reapply for an exemption. It also created an exemption review committee to oversee the process.

Religious exemption request. Pursuant to the policy change, the nurse reapplied for an exemption. However, this time she requested a religious exemption. In her request, she stated that she was a devout Christian, baptized in 2011, and made “all life decisions after thoughtful prayer and Biblical guidance.” She contended that receiving the vaccine would be sinning against her body, which is a temple of God, and against God himself. However, she also stated that she would follow God’s guidance if she later felt “compelled by the Spirit” to receive the vaccine. She also made scriptural references to support her position.

Ultimately, her religious exemption request was denied in March 2022. A second request was also denied, and the nurse was subsequently placed on administrative leave. Her continued noncompliance with the vaccination policy led to her termination in July 2022.

Lawsuit. Following her termination, the nurse filed this lawsuit for religious discrimination, alleging one count of failure to provide a religious accommodation under Title VII, and two counts for disparate treatment under Title VII and the Virginia Human Rights Act. The district court found the nurse failed to state a claim on all three counts and granted INOVA’s motion to dismiss.

With regard to the reasonable accommodation claim, the district court found that she had failed state a claim “because she did not raise abortion or fetal cells as a basis for her objection[.]” Further, it found that her objections based on her belief that her body was a temple amounted to a “blanket privilege... that if permitted to go forward would undermine our system of ordered liberty[.]”

As to the disparate treatment claims, the district court determined that they relied on the same facts as the reasonable accommodation claim and were thus duplicative. In addition, it found that the nurse failed to identify a comparator. This appeal followed.

Sincerely held belief. First addressing the nurse’s failure to accommodate claim, the appellate court explained an individual must show that their professed belief is sincerely held. At this stage, the nurse had sufficiently alleged that she was a sincere follower of the Christian faith, said the court.

Specifically, the nurse stated that she was a devout Christian, baptized in 2011, and made “all life decisions after thoughtful prayer and Biblical guidance.” Such assertions represented a good faith belief in the expression of her religious beliefs, said the court.

Religious in nature. In addition to showing a sincerely held belief, the nurse was also required to show that her beliefs were religious in nature. The court determined that she had met this threshold. Specifically, the nurse alleged, among other things: (1) “it would be sinful for her to engage with a product such as the vaccination after having been instructed by God to abstain from it”; (2) her “religious reasons for declining the covid vaccinations... were based on her ‘study and understanding of the Bible and personally directed by the true and living God’”; and (3) receiving the vaccine would be sinning against her body, which is a temple of God, and against God himself.

At the motion to dismiss stage, these allegations were sufficient to show that the nurse’s belief was an essential part of her religious faith, which must be given great weight, and were plausibly connected with her refusal to receive the COVID vaccine, explained the court. Such reasoning aligned with opinions by other circuits to have considered the issue, said the court. Accordingly, the district court erred in dismissing the nurse’s Title VII reasonable accommodation claim.

Claims not duplicative. Turning to the disparate treatment claims, the appellate court held as an initial matter that the district court erred in dismissing both claims as duplicative of the reasonable accommodation claim, explaining that a plaintiff may plead multiple or alternative claims based on the same facts.

Inference of discriminatory intent. As to the substance of her disparate treatment claims, the nurse alleged, among other things, that INOVA (1) “decided to pick winners and losers from among the employees making exemption requests, based upon whether the [Exemption Committee] found an employee’s religious beliefs were legitimate”; (2) “created specific questions for each employee to answer so that the [Executive Committee] could scrutinize and determine, in its view, the validity of an employee’s religious beliefs”; and (3) “found certain religious beliefs as sufficiently acceptable to qualify for a Covid-19 Policy exemption, while rejecting others.”

Such allegations, explained the court, sufficiently demonstrated that INOVA treated the nurse differently than other employees because of her religious belief and supported a reasonable inference of discriminatory intent at this stage. Thus, the district court erred in summarily dismissing these claims, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

The case is No. 24-1271.

Judge: Gregory, R.

Attorneys: Timothy Bosson (Law Offices of Timothy Bosson) for Kristen M. Barnett. Alexander Paul Berg (Littler Mendelson) for INOVA Health Care Services.

Companies: INOVA Health Care Services

Cases: Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination Discharge StateLawClaims Covid19 MarylandNews NorthCarolinaNews SouthCarolinaNews VirginiaNews WestVirginiaNews GCNNews