Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—D. Ariz.: Pharmaceutical account managers may move forward with vaccination religious discrimination claim, (Feb 21, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

Questions remained about whether the company “reasonably accommodated” employees or “assessed the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation.”

Three former account managers of a large pharmaceutical and medical supply company may move forward with their failure to accommodate claim in a religious discrimination case over the employer’s COVID vaccination requirement, a federal court in Arizona has ruled. The employees had requested a religious accommodation to the company’s vaccine requirement, were denied, and then fired. The court found genuine issues of material fact as to whether the employees had sincerely held religious beliefs, and whether the employer reasonably accommodated or assessed the reasonableness of an accommodation, that prevented the granting of summary judgment on all claims. However, the pharmaceutical company was granted summary judgment on the claims of disparate impact and retaliation (Loyd v. McKesson, CV-22-02065-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz. Feb. 20, 2025)).

Termination. The account managers sold medical products and services to healthcare providers within an assigned geographic territory. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, the pharmaceutical company required its employees to work remotely and prohibited in-person work and client visits. Later, the employer instituted a COVID vaccine requirement for its employees and allowed for religious accommodations. The employees submitted accommodation requests that were ultimately denied, and they were fired. The employer claimed that their requests were insincere and pretextual. However, it admitted that because of “changes in the law,” eventually six other account managers were granted an accommodation.

Religious beliefs. Each of the three account managers presented different origins of their religious beliefs against taking the vaccination—body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, gene therapy would alter immune system created by God, and the vaccines were developed from aborted fetuses. According to the court, the fact that later deposition testimonies may conflict with the employees’ initial religious exemption language did not prove, as a matter of law, that the employees’ religious beliefs are insincere. Also, even if the depositions indicated that their beliefs about vaccines were not entirely religious, that did not mean their beliefs were not religious at all, according to the court. The questions are for the trier of fact, the court found.

Undue hardship. The court found that the pharmaceutical company failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its undue hardship defense for a religious accommodation, and that the account managers could proceed on their failure-to-accommodate claims. The court noted that the employer admitted that it does swap accounts among sales representatives in the ordinary course of business, and that even vaccinated account managers were not required to visit customers in person, pushing against the claim that in-person contact was necessary. Also, no evidence was presented that the employer asked the account managers whether they would voluntarily swap accounts, which is generally considered an accommodation that can be achieved without undue hardship.

Disparate impact and retaliation. However, the pharmaceutical company was granted summary judgment on the claims of disparate impact and retaliation. The account managers failed demonstrate that the vaccination policy had a significantly discriminatory impact on a protected group, and even if they had, they failed to provide statistical evidence. As to the retaliation claim, although the account managers engaged in a protected activity when they made their accommodation requests, they did not raise a genuine dispute as to whether they were terminated because of their requests.

The case is CV-22-02065-PHX-DLR.

Judge: Rayes, D.

Attorneys: Joshua William Carden (Carden Livesay Ltd.) for R. Jason Loyd. Leah S. Freed (Ogletree Deakins P.C.) for McKesson Corp.

Companies: McKesson Corp.

Cases: Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination Covid19 Retaliation ArizonaNews