Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—E.D. Mich.: Jury to decide Title VII claims of former Red Cross nurse fired after refusing COVID-19 vaccine, (Feb 18, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D.

The nurse argued that she is a practicing Lutheran who regularly attends church; that she believes her body is a temple for the Holy Spirit; and that she believes getting vaccinated for COVID would defile her bodily temple by impermissibly altering God’s design.

A former nurse at the American Red Cross sued the organization for religious discrimination under Title VII after she was terminated when she refused to receive a COVID-19 vaccine based on her religious objections. A federal district court in Michigan held that neither party was entitled to summary judgment on the issues of liability or damages, as a reasonable jury could conclude that she opposed Red Cross’s vaccine mandate for religious reasons, or conversely conclude that her purported religious objection to Red Cross’s vaccine mandate was insincere (Sturgill v. The American Red Cross, No. 22-cv-11837 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 12, 2025)).

Accommodation request. In September 2021, anticipating a vaccine mandate by her employer, the nurse submitted a religious workplace accommodation request, arguing that the vaccine conflicted with her Christian faith. She cited biblical passages, emphasizing her belief that her body was a temple and that taking the vaccine would defile it. She also referenced concerns about potential health risks due to a blood-clotting disorder.

The Red Cross announced that all employees needed to be vaccinated by December 31, 2021, with no option for regular testing. The organization based its policy on a federal executive order requiring government contractors to enforce workplace vaccine mandates, but the order included religious and medical exemptions. It then determined that the nurse’s opposition was primarily medical rather than religious and denied her request in November 2021, despite a follow-up letter reaffirming her religious objections.

Termination. After failing to provide proof of vaccination, the nurse was officially terminated in January 2022. In addition to her religious objection, though, she also cited medical reasons—and the potential worsening of some of her medical conditions—as reasons for opposing the vaccine.

She filed suit seeking back pay, front pay (or reinstatement), emotional distress, and punitive damages. The district court initially dismissed the case, ruling that the nurse’s objections were based on medical rather than religious reasons. The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal, finding that the nurse’s stated religious reasons could not be disregarded at the pleading stage. Upon remand, both parties sought summary judgment.

Analysis. The federal district court addressed the procedural issues under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, assessing whether there were no material facts at issue so that either party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Liability. Regarding the issue of liability, the Red Cross conceded that it required the nurse to get vaccinated; that she said her religious beliefs conflicted with its vaccine mandate; that it fired her for refusing to get vaccinated; and that it could have accommodated her beliefs without undue hardship. It maintained, however, that it was entitled to summary judgment on liability because the nurse only opposed its vaccine mandate for nonreligious medical reasons.

Thus, with respect to liability, the court noted that the parties only disagreed about whether the nurse’s sincere religious beliefs conflicted with Red Cross’s vaccine mandate and held that to be an issue that needed to be resolved by a jury. A reasonable jury that made all credibility determinations in the nurse’s favor could conclude from these proofs that she opposed Red Cross’s vaccine mandate for religious reasons, the court noted, and concluding otherwise would require an impermissible credibility determination. The court denied Red Cross’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Moreover, the federal district court held that the former employee also was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. A reasonable jury that made all credibility determinations in Red Cross’s favor would find that her purported religious objection to Red Cross’s vaccine mandate was insincere, the court explained, particularly as she had articulated concrete medical reasons for opposing Red Cross’s vaccine mandate.

Damages. Regarding back pay, the court denied the Red Cross’s motion for summary judgment. A reasonable jury could find that the nurse has earned less money, or no money at all, because of Red Cross’s discrimination, and therefore she was entitled to recover “the difference between the amount that she actually earned while being discriminated against and the amount that she would have earned if no discrimination had occurred.”

Additionally, the jury could find that the nurse was entitled to reinstatement and front pay, the court held, as well as punitive damages. The court did grant summary judgment for the Red Cross on the issue of emotional distress damages, holding that she failed to present evidence of any emotional distress, which means that no reasonable jury would find that she suffered emotional distress.

The case is No. 22-cv-11837.

Judge: Cox, S.

Attorneys: Brendan John Childress (Hurwitz Law) for Aimee Sturgill. Constantinos G. Panagopoulos (Ballard Spahr) for The American Red Cross.

Companies: The American Red Cross

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Covid19 MichiganNews