Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—D. Md.: Employer not required to engage in interactive process regarding vaccine exemption requests, (Jan 23, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Although the employees had established that their beliefs were sincerely held and religious in nature, accommodating their vaccine exemption requests would have posed an undue hardship.

Granting summary judgment against Title VII religious discrimination claims brought by four government contractors, a federal district court in Maryland determined that Title VII claims do not require employers to engage in an interactive process with employees if the employer determines that an accommodation would pose an undue hardship. In this instance, although the employees had established that they had bona fide religious beliefs and that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine would run counter to those beliefs, the employer had shown that granting their requests for a religious accommodation to a vaccine mandate would have created an undue hardship (Davis v. Reliance Test & Technology, LLC, No. DKC 22-1760 (D. Md. Jan. 22, 2025)).

The employer in this case is a government contractor who worked with the United States Navy to perform “Atlantic Range Technical Support Services (ARTSS) for the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division.” The four individuals who brought this case were tasked with performing work on the employer’s contract with the Navy. Their jobs required them to be on-site, which often involved traveling on ships during missions that lasted more than 24 hours.

Vaccine mandate. On October 19, 2021, the employer emailed the employees informing them that the federal government was requiring federal contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19. On October 27, the employer issued its own vaccination policy requiring all workers to be vaccinated.

Religious objections. The four employees who filed this suit opposed receiving the vaccine for religious reasons. Of the four, only one submitted a formal exemption request. The other three asserted that a supervisor told them that any exemption requests would be denied, and that requesting an accommodation would be a “waste of paper.” On December 9, 2021, the formal exemption request was granted, subject to change based on the requirements for the employee’s work location.

Mandate updated. On May 1, 2022, the Department of Defense issued a memorandum requiring all mission support members for missions at sea longer than 24 hours to be fully vaccinated. The employees were required to be vaccinated by May 27.

SAC report. As a government contractor, the employer received Surveillance Activity Checklists (SAC). A SAC Report is a “government developed and applied document used to make sure systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the LOE [Level of Effort] based service order... to provide performance feedback to a contractor and the COR [the government’s Contracting Officer Representative].”

On May 3, 2022, the government gave the employer a “marginal” rating on the adequate staffing portion of a SAC report. The evaluator stated that the employer’s “workforce is down by four personnel due to vaccination status. This reduces the ability to utilize these four individuals for any [Travel Duty] events which is the core of ATMO mission support. This also impacts morale with the contractor personnel that are required to travel for mission support.”

Terminations. As the vaccine deadline approached, each employee received a letter reiterating the vaccination requirement and warning that failure to provide proof of vaccination would result in termination. The employees failed to show proof of vaccination and were subsequently terminated on May 30, 2022. They then filed this lawsuit asserting Title VII religious discrimination claims.

Bona fide religious beliefs. First assessing whether the employees had established a prima facie case of religious discrimination, the court considered whether they had established a bona fide religious belief in their objections to the vaccine requirement.

One employee testified that, as a Catholic, he believes his body is a “temple of the Holy Spirit” that he did not want to “defile” with a vaccine. Another employee also testified that he is Catholic and that it was against his “religious free will” to receive a vaccine. A third employee asserted both religious and medical objections to the vaccine. The only employee to make a formal accommodation request stated that he too was Catholic and, according to his beliefs, he must “refuse the use of medical products including certain vaccines and gene therapy, that are produced using human cell lines derived from direct abortions.” The court determined that this was sufficient to show that all the employees held bona fide religious beliefs.

Accommodation requests. Although one the of the employees had submitted a formal accommodation request, the other three did not based on a comment made by their supervisor. The court noted that the employer could not tell the employees not to request accommodations, then fault them for not requesting accommodations.

Undue hardship. Asserting an undue hardship defense, the employer pointed to the fact it is a government contractor and must comply with the government’s policies. Further, the employer pointed to its marginal rating on the SAC report for failing to have adequate staff. The employer stated this shortage was due to its employees’ refusal to abide by the vaccine mandate. Finally, the employer contended that allowing the employees to work while unvaccinated would have created a safety risk to its other employees as well as federal employees.

This was sufficient to show that accommodating the vaccination exemptions could have risked the employer’s contract with the government, that the employees were unable to perform their jobs fully while unvaccinated, and that they posed a risk to other employees and government employees, said the court. As such, the employer had established that accommodating the requests would have created an undue hardship.

Interactive process? Failing to dispute the facts proffered by the employer and failing to set forth their own facts showing that their requests could have been accommodated without creating an undue hardship, the employees instead appeared to argue that the employer did not engage in an appropriate interactive process in considering their requests. On this point the court stated that, “It is far from clear that an interactive process is required in the Title VII context.”

Although an interactive process is required under the ADA, continued the court, the employees had failed to cite to any other cases or authorities to support their argument that Title VII requires an interactive process. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted to the employer based on its undue hardship defense.

The case is No. DKC 22-1760.

Judge: Chasanow, D.

Attorneys: Theresa Dawn Truitt Kraft (Wilt Toikka Kraft) for Dustin Joseph Davis. Elana Chaya Taub (Jackson Lewis) for Reliance Test & Technology, LLC.

Companies: Reliance Test & Technology, LLC

Cases: Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination Discharge GovernmentContracts Covid19 MarylandNews