Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—D. Minn.: Retired, not forced out, 3M wins in religious discrimination claim over vaccination, (Feb 11, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

The court wrote, “…it was his premature fear that he would be terminated that led him to retire, not any failure by 3M…”

A COVID vaccination requirement was announced by 3M in 2021, although the implementation of the requirement was never realized. Between the announcement, the changing date of compliance, and ultimate withdrawal of the requirement, religious exemptions were allowed to be filed by employees. An employee claimed he suffered religious discrimination, even though he retired on the same day that he received the denial of his religious exemption application. The court found evidence of harm lacking and granted 3M’s motion to dismiss the case (Goecke v. 3M Co., No. 22-cv-3087 (KMM/DJF) (D. Minn. Feb. 10, 2025)).

Timeline. On September 2021, 3M sent its U.S.-based employees an email, informing them about Executive Order 14042 mandating COVID vaccinations and stating that 3M was required to comply with it as a federal contractor. Employees were also informed of the processes for seeking a medical or religious exemption and that the vaccination would be required by December 8, 2021. The employee applied for a religious exemption and communicated his desire not to receive the vaccination. On October 28, 2021, he placed a request to begin receiving pension benefits starting on December 1, with a last day of employment to occur on November 30, 2021.

On November 11, 2021, 3M informed all employees that the deadline for being vaccinated was moved up, to January 4, 2022. On November 25, the employee responded to a question about if he continued to plan to retire, writing, “Yes—In fact, I am already retired. With vacation, my last day with 3M was Tuesday...” On November 30, the employee’s religious exemption was denied. On December 13, 2021, 3M sent all employees an email stating that, following a federal court order, “employees will not be required to be vaccinated…”

Analysis. 3M argued that it was entitled to summary judgment since the employee never suffered an adverse reaction because he chose to retire, and relatedly, could not claim “constructive discharge” or “forced discharge” because he was not subjected to any intolerable workplace conditions. The court noted that it could imagine a scenario in which a person might be subjected to sufficient workplace hostility or alienation, based on a vaccination stance, to create a triable issue of fact over whether 3M intended to force him to quit rather than fire him.

However, the court found no such scenario in the present case. In sum, the court found that the employee failed to show any evidence that his working conditions were affected by his opposition to the vaccine requirement or evidence of changes to his workplace condition that a reasonable person would find intolerable and that showed 3M’s intent to force him to quit.

The court stated that it was the employee’s premature fear that he would be terminated that led to his retirement, not any failure by 3M, and that “…had he allowed his employer of nearly 30 years just a couple more weeks, he likely would have been working for 3M when the vaccination requirement was lifted, which was also before any deadline to be vaccinated had been reached.”

The case is No. 22-cv-3087 (KMM/DJF).

Judge: Menendez, K.

Attorneys: Francis H. White, III (Francis White Law) for Richard R. Goecke. Patrick R. Martin (Ogletree Deakins) for 3M Company.

Companies: 3M Company

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Covid19 MinnesotaNews