Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—D. Mass.: Client-facing state agency employee fired for refusing COVID-19 vax gets Title VII suit tossed, (Jan 10, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

Her job required her to visit disabled individuals in state-run congregate care homes and given the COVID-19 crisis at the time, allowing her to work while unvaccinated would have posed an undue burden.

The Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services (DDS) and its governing executive agency won’t face trial on a former employee’s Title VII lawsuit asserting the agency unlawfully discriminated against her because of her religion by failing to accommodate her request for a religious exemption to its COVID-19 vaccination policy and terminating her for refusing to be vaccinated. Though a jury could find that she held a sincere religious belief that prevented her from getting the vaccine, allowing her exemption request would have posed an undue hardship on the employer in light of the increased staffing shortages, the vulnerable population she worked with, and the severity of the COVID-19 illness for unvaccinated people at the time, a federal district court ruled in granting summary judgement against her (Quintal v. Department of Development Services, No. 23-10692-PBS (D. Mass. Jan. 3, 2025)).

Program monitor. DDS delivers specialized services and support programs for adults and children with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and as a program monitor the employee worked in area offices to monitor the wellbeing of DDS residents. She spent at least two days a week in the central office with around five other people and was also responsible for interviewing and gathering information through in-person, onsite visits to DDS congregate care settings. These visits involved interviewing about three to four residents and three to four staff members who provided round-the-clock care.

COVID-19 executive order. On August 19, 2021, the Massachusetts governor issued Executive Order 595 (EO 595), which ordered all executive department employees to show they had been vaccinated for COVID-19 by October 17, 2021, and required agencies to implement a procedure to allow limited exemptions “where a reasonable accommodation can be reached for any employee who is unable to receive COVID-19 vaccination due to medical disability or... sincerely held religious belief.”

Request for religious exemption. The employee requested a religious exemption in which she asked to be permitted to perform her in-person work duties wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) and social distancing and that she be tested periodically for the virus. Her exemption request stated in relevant part, “I seek God’s will in all areas of my life through prayer and the discernment He bestows upon me. I had Covid and recovered due to the healthy immune system God has given me. I am protected from getting Covid due to this natural immunity and my reliance upon God’s protection. I have prayed and asked God whether I should get the Covid shot and I have received a clear word from the Lord that I must not get the shot.”

Request denied, terminated. To review her request, the labor relations coordinator for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) interviewed the employee, considered her job description and work location, and spoke to her manager. Following the assessment, both EOHHS and DDS determined that granting her an exemption would pose an undue hardship and that no alternative accommodations would allow her to perform the essential functions of her job. As a result, DDS terminated her on December 2, 2021.

Sincere belief. The court rejected the defendants’ contention that the employee’s claim failed at the prima facie stage since her objection to the COVID-19 vaccine focused on “medical, health, and lifestyle reasons” that were personal in nature and not religious. In particular, she argued in response that “as a Christian she had prayed and sought discernment about the COVID-19 vaccine, and relied on God’s protection and her healthy immune system.” Given her statements in her exemption request, including that she had “received a clear word from the Lord that I must not get the shot,” a jury could find that her refusal to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was based on a sincere religious belief.

Undue burden. However, DDS and EOHHS demonstrated that accommodating her vaccine exemption request would have imposed an undue hardship. They argued that because visiting congregate care homes requires close social interaction, allowing her to remain unvaccinated would pose “an unsafe risk of transmission of COVID into the vulnerable resident and staff population.” And in similar circumstances, numerous courts have held that providing a vaccine exemption would create undue hardship.

Expert testimony. The employer relied on the affidavit of the Medical Director of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health’s Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences, who stated that “without vaccinations, residents and staff at EOHHS and DDS, as well as members of the public, would be at significantly greater risk of contracting COVID-19.” He also stated that “[t]he most effective method for preventing the spread of COVID-19 was (and is) widespread vaccination of a given population.” While the employee pointed out that he admitted that vaccinated individuals can still contract and transmit COVID-19, his undisputed expert testimony was that vaccinated individuals are still better protected against serious illness or death.

The court was thus persuaded that lessening the risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19 reduced the operational impact on DDS, particularly since at the time of the employee’s termination, the agency had suffered from staffing shortages caused by workers suffering from the virus. “Taking into account the increased staffing shortages, the vulnerable population [the employee] and her colleagues worked with, and the severity of the COVID-19 illness for unvaccinated people at the time,” the defendants demonstrated allowing her to remain unvaccinated would have imposed an undue hardship.

The case is No. 23-10692-PBS.

Judge: Saris, P.

Attorneys: Jeffrey T. Collins (Morgan, Brown & Joy) for Department of Developmental Services and Executive Office of Health & Human Services.

Companies: Department of Developmental Services; Executive Office of Health & Human Services

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Covid19 PublicEmployees MassachusettsNews