Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—D. Md.: Registered nurse creates triable issue of fact on sincerity of religious beliefs, (Jun 17, 2025)

By Robert Margolis, J.D.

That employee had received flu vaccine before opposing COVID-19 vaccine mandate, though relevant to sincerity issue, was not dispositive, particularly since employee claimed not to know option to pursue religious exemption from flu vaccine.

Noting that summary judgment is rarely warranted on the issue of whether a religious belief is sincerely held, a federal district court in Maryland has denied Medstar Health, Inc.’s summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss a Title VII claim by a former employee, a registered nurse, who refused to comply with Medstar’s mandate for employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccination, was terminated, and sued Medstar for failure to accommodate her religious beliefs. Medstar argued that the nurse had received flu vaccinations, and that purported inconsistency undermined her claim that the religious belief she claimed prevented her from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine was sincerely held. The court disagreed, holding while the alleged inconsistency may be relevant, it was not dispositive, particularly because the nurse claimed she was unaware she could have sought from Medstar an exemption from the flu vaccine requirement. The court did grant summary judgment to Medstar on the nurse’s wrongful termination claim under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA), holding she did not raise a triable issue that her termination was based on religious bias (Anoruo v. Medstar Health, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-01970-JRR (D. Md. Jun. 9, 2025)).

The former employee was a registered nurse at a facility owned and operated by Medstar. During her employment, Medstar maintained a mandatory flu vaccine policy, which allowed employees to seek religious exemptions. The nurse annually received the flu vaccine, and she claims she was not aware of the availability of the exemption option.

In August 2021, Medstar instituted a mandate that employees obtain the COVID-19 vaccine. The mandate provided employees with a process for obtaining a religious exemption from the mandate, for employees who, according to the policy, demonstrate “a sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance that prevents the individual from receiving” a COVID-19 vaccine. It set a deadline of November 1, 2021, for employees to receive the vaccine or request such an exemption, and those who did not meet that deadline would be suspended without pay for one week, during which they were to receive the vaccine or be subject to discipline up to and including termination.

The nurse applied for the exemption, writing in her application that her body is a temple of God, and she “is not to defile it.” She, therefore, is “careful not to put certain things in my body” and “must stay away from certain foods, certain drinks, and vaccines.” She further wrote that her religious beliefs prevent her from receiving all vaccines. Medstar denied her application for an exemption, determining she had not shown her religious belief prevented her from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine since she had received flu vaccines. When the nurse did not comply with the vaccine mandate by the deadline for doing so, her employment was terminated.

Belief sincerity. The only element of the nurse’s Title VII failure to accommodate claim that Medstar disputed was whether she held a “bona fide” religious belief. To establish that element, the nurse had to provide evidence that her belief preventing her from being vaccinated is (1) “sincerely held” and (2) religious in nature. The court held she raised triable issues on each of these factors.

The court began with the premise, which Medstar itself acknowledged, that summary judgment on the sincerity prong is seldom warranted. Despite that acknowledgement, Medstar argued that the nurse’s receipt of the flu vaccine showed an inconsistency that rendered her proffered religious opposition to the COVID-19 vaccine not sincere. But citing authority from a federal district court in Massachusetts that addressed a similar issue, the court found that while relevant to the sincerity prong, evidence of such “inconsistency” is not dispositive. Here, Medstar was required to show an absence of evidence supporting the sincerity of the nurse’s beliefs and it failed to meet that standard. When questioned about the flu vaccine, the nurse testified she was unaware of the option to apply for a religious exemption. Further, when she submitted her request for the COVID-19 vaccine exemption, she also requested an identical exemption from the flu vaccine. This was sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to the sincerity of her beliefs, the court held.

As to whether the beliefs are religious in nature, the court pointed out that when faced with “body-as-temple claims” from persons seeking religious exemptions from vaccine requirements, courts require explanations of why receipt of the vaccine would conflict with religious beliefs, while ingestion of other foreign substances, such as food and beverages, would not. Persons seeking those exemptions lose when they make blanket “body-as-temple” statements but do not provide those explanations. Here, the nurse did not make such a “blanket” statement, and only asserted that she is called to avoid “certain food and drinks” and vaccines. And the inconsistency as to the flu vaccine, as noted, was explained by her claimed ignorance of the option of obtaining an exemption. This was enough to create triable issues of fact on whether the belief is religious in nature, the court held.

Accommodation. The nurse had requested an accommodation that she not be tested twice weekly as set forth in Medstar’s policy for persons who are exempted from the COVID-19 vaccine requirement (assuming she was granted the exemption). But because Medstar rejected this without engaging in any interactive accommodation process, indeed it rejected her request for the exemption full-stop, it could not argue speculatively that its proffered accommodation would have sufficed.

Religious discrimination. Because there was no dispute that Medstar’s policy applies equally to all employees, the nurse was terminated for failure to comply with that policy, and she provided no evidence on which a reasonable factfinder could base a finding of a discriminatory animus, the court granted summary judgment on her claim for religious discrimination in violation of MFEPA.

The case is No. 1:23-cv-01970-JRR.

Judge: Rubin, J.

Attorneys: Lorna Maria Henry (Pacific Justice Institute) for Darlene Anoruo. D. Ontae D. Sylvertooth (Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC) for MedStar Health, Inc. and MedStar Franklin Square Medical Center.

Companies: MedStar Health, Inc.; MedStar Franklin Square Medical Center

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Covid19 Discharge MarylandNews