Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—D. Mass.: Hospital radiology tech, fired after refusing COVID-19 vax, cannot advance claims, (Jul 24, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Presuming her religious beliefs were sincerely held, the court nonetheless held that accommodating the employee’s exemption request would have posed an undue hardship to the employer.

Granting a hospital’s motion for summary judgment against the religious discrimination, retaliation, federal and state constitution, and assault claims brought by a former radiological technologist, a federal district court in Massachusetts determined that the hospital successfully established an undue hardship defense with regard to the employee’s request for a religious exemption to its COVID vaccination policy. Further, there was no evidence allowing for an inference that the hospital retaliated against the employee for opposing its mandate or that the hospital acted under color of state law when it terminated the employee. As to the assault claim, there was no evidence that the COVID policy constituted “objectively menacing conduct” that would place a reasonable person in fear of imminent bodily harm (Geronimo v. Melrose-Wakefield Healthcare Corp., No. 1:23-cv-11138-JEK (D. Mass. July 22, 2025)).

The hospital is a community healthcare provider owned by Tufts Medicine, Inc., with several locations in the northern suburbs of Boston. The plaintiff in this case was employed as a radiologic technologist from January 2, 2007, to December 1, 2021.

Religious exemption request. On October 11, 2021, the employee, who identifies as Catholic, submitted a request for a religious exemption from the hospital’s COVID vaccination requirement. The request was denied on October 20, with the hospital stating that accommodating such a request would pose an undue hardship. In accordance with its policy, the employee was terminated on December 1 after failing to comply with the hospital’s vaccine mandate. This lawsuit followed.

Undue hardship. First, the court addressed the employee’s religious discrimination claims. Assuming the employee’s beliefs were sincerely held, the court nevertheless found that accommodating her religious exemption request would pose an undue hardship to the hospital.

Prior to implementing its COVID policy, the hospital treated more than 1,200 patients with COVID, and more than 200 died from the virus or related complications. In addition, several hundred staff members contracted COVID during this period. Based on these experiences and on guidance from the CDC, the hospital determined that any increased risk of COVID transmission would impede its ability to operate.

In light of these undisputed facts, the court found that the hospital demonstrated that permitting the employee to work while unvaccinated would have resulted in substantial increased costs in connection with its business as a healthcare provider. Accordingly, the hospital was entitled to summary judgment against the employee’s religious discrimination claims.

Retaliation. Next, the court considered the employee’s claim that her termination amounted to unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII. The hospital contended that even if the refusal to take a COVID vaccine constituted protected conduct, the employee failed to show a causal connection between that conduct and the loss of her employment. The court agreed.

The employee failed to proffer evidence that she opposed COVID vaccination prior to the hospital’s announcement of its policy such that an inference of retaliation may be made, explained the court. Nor was there any evidence allowing for an inference that the hospital retaliated against her for opposing its mandate. Rather, the record showed that the hospital terminated her employment after denying her request for a religious exemption. As such, the hospital was entitled to summary judgment against this claim.

Constitutional claims. Turning to the employee’s federal and state constitutional claims, alleging that the hospital violated her equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because it treated her differently than her coworkers who opted to receive a COVID vaccine, and that her substantive and procedural due process rights were violated under both federal and state constitutions, the court found that she had failed to adduce evidence that the hospital was acting under color of state law or that its conduct was fairly attributable to the state when it terminated her employment.

There is no evidence that the hospital’s vaccine policy or its termination of the employee bore any nexus to government action, said the court, granting summary judgment against these claims.

Assault. Finally, the employee asserted a claim of assault against the hospital for allegedly placing her “in fear and apprehension of imminent bodily harm.” Where, as alleged here, an assault involves a threatened battery, a plaintiff “must prove that the defendant engaged in objectively menacing conduct with the intent to put the victim in fear of immediate bodily harm.”

First, the court found that this claim failed for abandonment, given the employee made no argument in response to the hospital’s motion for summary judgment. Second, the record lacked any evidence that the hospital’s COVID policy constituted “objectively menacing conduct” that would place a reasonable person in fear of imminent bodily harm. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted against this claim.

The case is No. 1:23-cv-11138-JEK.

Judge: Kobick, J.

Attorneys: Joseph Spinale (Chambers Law Office) for Janice Geronimo. Eve R. Keller (Jackson Lewis) for Melrose-Wakefield Healthcare Corp.

Companies: Melrose-Wakefield Healthcare Corp.

Cases: Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination Discharge IndividualRights Retaliation StateLawClaims Covid19 MassachusettsNews