Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—D. Colo.: Employer satisfied accommodation obligations by offering weekly testing to vaccine-objectors, (Dec 11, 2025)

By Elizabeth C. Pope, J.D.

Employees who objected to COVID-19 vaccination on religious grounds were offered participation in a testing regime that included weekly nasal swab testing and use of an approved mask when in the office.

A life science and clinical research company that, in 2021, required COVID-19 vaccinations of his workforce met its Title VII obligation to reasonably accommodate employees with religious objections to the vaccine by offering a testing regime, and it was not required to accommodate a sales representative’s nonreligious objection to nasal testing. The federal court in Colorado, in addition to granting summary judgment on the employee’s religious discrimination claims, also found for the employer on claims of retaliation and wrongful discharge (Wons v. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., No. 23-cv-00480-RM-SBP (D. Colo. Dec. 9, 2025)).

COVID vaccination. In September 2021, the employer began implementation of its COVID-19 vaccination policy. It required its employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or to comply with a testing regime. Employees not vaccinated would be required to test weekly via nasal swab and to wear an approved mask while on-site.

The sales representative did not want to vaccinate and requested a religious accommodation form. In December 2021, the employer conditionally approved the employee’s accommodation request but informed him he would be required to comply with the company’s testing requirement. In February 2022, the employee signed the conditional approval of the vaccination accommodation but altered the language relating to testing, asserting in part that “I am remote. I do not consent—not a reasonable accommodation.”

Request denied. The employer notified the employee that it was denying the request for accommodation from the testing requirement. In March, the employee informed the employer he intended to file a discrimination charge with the EEOC. In May, he was placed on unpaid leave and was terminated in June.

The employee filed suit, alleging claims for religious discrimination under Title VII and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), retaliation, and wrongful termination. The employer moved for summary judgment. The federal trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on all counts.

Religious discrimination—failure to accommodate. The court first acknowledged that the employee had, with respect to the employer’s vaccination requirement, established a prima facie case of discrimination: He informed the employer of his religious objection to the vaccination and was ultimately terminated. However, the employer met its burden to offer reasonable accommodation by permitting the employee to comply with its testing regime. Under Title VII an employer is not required to offer an accommodation the employee prefers; it is only required to offer an accommodation that is reasonable.

With respect to the employer’s testing requirement, the employee failed to even establish a prima facie case that discrimination had occurred. He failed to demonstrate that he informed the employer that nasal swab testing conflicted with his religious beliefs. He made general objections to nasal testing, asserting that it was “not necessary” and also inquired regarding “spit tests” as an alternative. The employee offered no evidence he ever stated a religious objection to nasal testing.

Religious discrimination—disparate treatment. The court first rejected as “unfounded and conclusory” the employee’s contention that direct evidence existed that the employer treated its Christian and non-Christian employees differently. Next, it used the McDonnell-Douglas framework to analyze the circumstantial evidence of discrimination offered by the employee. The court concluded that the employee failed to demonstrate a prima facie case because he did not show any similarly situated employee was treated more favorably than he was. Even if he had established a prima facie case, the record was “simply devoid” of any evidence the employer’s stated reasons for firing him were pretextual.

Retaliation. Turning to the employee’s claims of retaliation under Title VII and CADA, the court determined that the employee established a prima facie case of retaliation premised on the filing of his EEOC claim. The employer, however, demonstrated a facially nondiscriminatory reason for termination—the employee’s failure to comply with either the vaccination or the testing requirement—but the employee failed to establish a genuine dispute as to whether the employer’s conduct was pretextual.

The temporal proximity between the EEOC filing and the unpaid leave and termination was not enough to demonstrate pretext in this instance. By the time he was placed on unpaid leave, the employee had received multiple warnings regarding his failure to comply with employer policies; indeed, he received one more warning prior to termination. Thus, the unpaid leave and the termination were the culmination of a disciplinary process set motion before he filed his EEOC charge.

Wrongful termination. The court also rejected the employee’s wrongful termination claims, which were based on theories of breach of employment policy and violation of public policy.

The case is No. 23-cv-00480-RM-SBP.

Judge: Moore, R.

Attorneys: Emily T. Davis (Illumine Legal) for Richard R. Wons. Kendall F. Merrill (Jackson Lewis) for Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.

Companies: Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Covid19 Discharge ColoradoNews