Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—D. Or.: In-school mental health clinician, fired for refusing COVID vaccine, will not get trial, (Sep 24, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

His position required in-person, close contact with medically vulnerable children and clients, and he was the only school-based clinician without backup, which created heightened health risks and operational strains.

A mental health worker sued the Benton County Health Department, his former employer, after his request for a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination was denied. An Oregon federal court granted summary judgment to the employer on the disparate treatment claim—the employee could not show that any similarly situated individuals outside of the protected class were treated more favorably. It also granted summary judgment on his failure to accommodate claim, explaining that accommodating him would impose an undue hardship on the employer, with the court emphasizing both economic and non-economic considerations (Pound v. Benton County Health Department, No. 6:23-cv-01670-MTK (D. Or. Sept. 19, 2025)).

In August 2020, the employee began working for Benton County Health Department, providing in-person case management and skills training for children diagnosed with serious and persistent mental illness. In August 2021, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) enacted a rule requiring all healthcare providers and staff to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by October 18, 2021, unless they qualified for a medical or religious exemption. The mental health worker submitted a religious exemption request the next day, citing beliefs that prevented him from receiving the vaccine. After meeting with him, the employer denied the request. On October 14, 2021, the employee was laid off but placed on a six-month recall list.

In February 2022, the County offered him a position contingent upon vaccination. He sought a medical exemption based on “natural immunity,” which was denied, and he was removed from the recall list.

He filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, alleging religious discrimination under Title VII and Oregon’s employment discrimination statute, ORS 659A.030. He brought two claims: disparate treatment, arguing he was treated less favorably because of his religion; and failure to accommodate, arguing the County did not reasonably accommodate his religious beliefs. The County moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were time-barred, that the employee failed to establish a prima facie case, and that accommodation would impose an undue hardship.

Disparate treatment. On this claim, the federal district court granted summary judgment, holding that the employee could not show that any similarly situated individuals outside of the protected class were treated more favorably. He offered no evidence that unvaccinated employees who were not part of his protected class received more favorable accommodations or treatment, the court explained. He also did not offer any evidence of circumstances that “give rise to an inference of discrimination,’” the court added.

Undue hardship. Regarding his claim of non-accommodation, the employee had indisputably stated a prima facie case for failure to accommodate, the court explained, which shifted the burden to the employer to show that it made efforts to reasonably accommodate his religion or that it could not do so without undue hardship. The court applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy (2023), which clarified that undue hardship exists when an accommodation imposes a substantial burden in context. The Ninth Circuit’s recent Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue (2025) decision also guided the court’s analysis, as it upheld undue hardship findings in the COVID vaccine context.

The court agreed with the employer that accommodating the employee would impose an undue hardship on the County, emphasizing both economic and non-economic considerations. His position required in-person, close contact with medically vulnerable children and clients, and he was the only school-based clinician without backup, which created heightened health risks and operational strains. Additionally, granting his request risked opening the door to similar accommodations for potentially hundreds of employees, compounding administrative and safety burdens.

“The increased health and safety risks posed by unvaccinated employees working in person, the operational challenges created by a need to find another employee to fulfill Plaintiff’s duties, and the administrative burdens caused by hundreds of other accommodations would have imposed a substantial burden on Defendant,” the court explained. “Plaintiff offers no evidence and very little argument to rebut Defendant’s position or meet its burden to overcome summary judgment.”

The court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment.

The case is No. 6:23-cv-01670-MTK.

Attorneys: Paul Robert Armstrong Janzen (Rugged Law, Inc.) for William Pound. Lucas W. Reese (Garrett Hemann Robertson) for Benton County Health Department.

Companies: Benton County Health Department

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Covid19 OregonNews