Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—6th Cir.: Jehovah’s Witness, fired for refusal of COVID vaccine, revives discrimination claims, (Feb 14, 2025)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

Two cases following the district court’s decision clarified rules for claims for religious discrimination for refusal to get COVID vaccines.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court decision that allowed an employer to terminate an employee for refusing to get a COVID-19 vaccination. The employee, a practicing Jehovah’s Witness, had sued her employer under Title VII and Ohio law for religious discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. Citing two Sixth Circuit decisions, handed down after the district court decision, which clarified the standard of review for religious discrimination relating to refusal to submit to COVID vaccines or testing, the appellate court reversed the district court’s federal and state holdings (Prida v. Option Care Enterprises, Inc., No. 23-3936 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025, unpublished)).

Option Care. Option Care Enterprises, Inc. provides direct patient care through infusion services to people with acute and chronic conditions. The plaintiff worked at Option Care for approximately 25 years, most recently in network operations in Option Care’s Hudson, Ohio office. The employee was discharged from her position at Option Care in March of 2022 for refusing to comply with a weekly COVID testing requirement.

Vaccine mandate. In November 2021, Option Care implemented a COVID vaccine or testing mandate. The employees were required to get a COVID vaccine or take a weekly COVID test if they sought an exemption on medical or religious grounds. Based on her religious beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness, the employee refused both, and the employer terminated her for failure to comply.

Lawsuit. The employee sued Option Care in the Northern District Ohio alleging that Option Care discriminated against her based on her religion, failed to accommodate her religious beliefs, and retaliated against her protected activities under Title VII and Ohio law. The district court dismissed the employee’s complaint for failure to state a claim, holding that (1) the employee failed to sufficiently plead facts to support an inference that her refusal to take a COVID test was an aspect of her religious beliefs, and (2) she did not engage in protected activities necessary to find retaliation.

She appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

Religious discrimination and failure to accommodate. Citing Title VII, the appellate court noted that an employer may not discharge an employee because of religion and must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices.

Considering the district court decision ruling against the employee, the appellate court cited two Sixth Circuits decisions, handed down in its aftermath, that addressed the standard of pleading for a claim of religious discrimination related to a refusal to get a COVID vaccine, specifically Lucky v. Landmark Medical of Michigan, 103 F.4th 1241 (6th Cir. 2024) and Sturgill v. American Red Cross, 114 F.4th 803 (6th Cir. 2024).

In Sturgill, the appeals court ruled that, even though the plaintiff there alleged both religious and secular reasons for opposing the vaccine, the secular reasons did not negate the religious reasons at the motion to dismiss stage. The appellate court stated that the only disputed issue here at the motion to dismiss stage was whether the employee pleaded particular facts that supported a reasonable inference that she refused to take the COVID tests because of her religious beliefs. And the court stated that the employee had pleaded facts to demonstrate that she was genuine and persistent in asserting her religious beliefs. Although the district court’s pre-Lucky and Sturgill decision concluded that the employee’s accommodation request was largely based on secular beliefs, the appellate court stated that this concern could be explored at the later discovery and summary judgment stage.

Based on the intervening Lucky and Sturgill decisions, the appellate court thus reversed the district court’s dismissal of the employee’s discrimination and failure to accommodate claims.

Retaliation. The appellate court rejected Option Care’s arguments that the employee’s retaliation claims were precluded on the grounds of her failure to exhaust her Title VII claims before the EEOC and her failure to plead facts that supported a reasonable inference of retaliation.

Exhaustion. Option care argued that the employee had not exhausted her Title VII retaliation claim because she did not raise it before the EEOC. Rejecting this argument, the appellant court noted that although the employee did not expressly state to the EEOC that the employer had retaliated against her, it did make factual allegations related to her future retaliation claims. She stated that she notified Option Care of her religious belief that conflicted with the employer’s vaccination requirement, requested an accommodation, and was discharged after the employer had shared her vaccination status with others.

Merits of dismissal. Option care argued that dismissal of the employee’s complaint was proper because her complaint did not expressly assert her refusal to submit to the COVID vaccination constituted a protected activity. Examining the employee’s affidavit that she submitted to Option Care that opposed the COVID testing requirement, the district court concluded that it was too vague to properly allege unlawful discrimination.

The appellate court disagreed with the district court’s finding, noting that the employee alleged that she provided the affidavit in the days before her termination, and also that her protected activity included protesting Option Care’s “unlawful weekly covid testing policies.” A plausible way to read these pleadings was that the employee saw her affidavit as a protected activity protesting Option Care’s testing policy. Although Option Care may have viewed the employee’s statements as too vague to be construed as a potential notice of a legal action, the appellate court stated that such arguments could be developed at the later discovery and summary judgment stage of the proceeding.

Holding that the employee’s Title VII retaliation claim was supported by allegations showing a reasonable inference that she engaged in a protected activity that resulted in her discharge, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of her retaliation claim.

Ohio claims. The appellate court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the employee’s Ohio claims, stating that it had incorrectly analyzed the employee’s claims under a Title VII summary judgment standard, rather than a motion to dismiss standard, which applied here. Accordingly, consistent with its decision related to the employee’s federal claims, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the employee’s Ohio claims for religious discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation.

The case is No. 23-3936.

Judge: Stranch, J.

Attorneys: Warner D. Mendenhall (Law Offices of Warner Mendenhall) for Leah Prida. Jeffrey Blaine Keiper (Jackson Lewis) for Option Care Enterprises, Inc.

Companies: Option Care Enterprises, Inc.

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Covid19 KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews