Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—D. Ore.: Religious accommodation discrimination claim time-barred in COVID-19 vaccine mandate lawsuit, (May 29, 2025)

By Leah S. Poniatowski, J.D.

Reliance on distinguished case law was fatal to an employee’s argument that her claim was subject to a longer period to file.

A nurse pursing an employment discrimination claim against her employer hospital for failing to accommodate her request for a religious exemption to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate based on state law was time-barred, the federal district court in Oregon ruled. The court held that the case law supporting her argument no longer carried the same legal weight following a statutory amendment and a wave of subsequent legal decisions reflecting that change (Latham v. Legacy Health, No. 3:24-cv-01008-AN (D. Ore. May 13, 2025)).

Background. A registered nurse employed at a hospital in Oregon had requested a religious exemption from her employer’s mandate that all employees be vaccinated against COVID-19. Her employer later sent a mass email explaining that those who remained unvaccinated would have their employment terminated by a set date. A couple of weeks before the deadline, the nurse was put on unpaid leave and was presumably fired. Before she was let go, she claimed that she received prejudicial comments from her coworkers vis-a-vis her religion and the vaccine.

She filed a discrimination claim with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI). She received a right-to-sue letter from BOLI on February 13, 20203 and from the EEOC on March 26, 2024. She filed the present religious discrimination lawsuit June 24, 2024.

Procedural history. The nurse’s lawsuit was premised on Title VII and ORS § 659A.030 religious discrimination claims under various theories of liability, including failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, disparate impact, wrongful reduction in pay, retaliation, pattern-or-practice of discrimination, and hostile work environment. Her employer filed a motion to dismiss all but the failure to accommodate claim. The nurse agreed, voluntarily withdrawing all but the claims based on Title VII and ORS § 659A.030.

In the present motion, the hospital contends that the failure to accommodate claim is untimely because it was filed after the statutory 90-day period. However, the nurse challenged the time bar, asserting that the Oregon Workplace Fairness Act amendment to ORS § 659A.875 provides a five-year statute of limitations, as supported in a case decision that held a plaintiff’s claim should be subject to a statutory period of “whichever is longer, not whichever is shorter.”

Analysis. The court disagreed. According to the legal decision on which the nurse based her argument, ORS § 659A.875 provides two subsections, the first, limiting claims based on the statute to “no later than five years after the first occurrence of the alleged violation,” and the second, when an employee filed a complaint with BOLI, “within 90 days after a 90-day notice is mailed to the complainant….” Also, the first subsection is subject to the terms of the second subsection. Moreover, the decision supporting the nurse’s claim had been decided before the statute was amended.

In the case at bar, the court pointed to the long list of subsequent case law holding that those who choose to pursue a BOLI claim must file a civil action within 90 days of receiving the right-to-sue letter. Importantly, the court that decided the previous case has since ruled that it no longer adheres to that decision and is in consensus with the other courts. Therefore, the nurse’s state law claim was time-barred and, thus, dismissed with prejudice.

The case is No. 3:24-cv-01008-AN.

Judge: Nelson, A.

Attorneys: Paul Robert Armstrong Janzen (Rugged Law, Inc.) for Rebecca Latham. Brenda K. Baumgart (Stoel Rives LLP) for Legacy Health.

Companies: Legacy Health

Cases: Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination StateLawClaims Covid19 OregonNews