Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—E.D.N.Y.: Title VII action against hospital for terminating employee was dismissed, (Jan 15, 2025)

By Sara Cracau, J.D.

Title VII action against hospital for terminating respiratory therapist who refused to comply with hospital’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy was dismissed as enforcement of the policy did not constitute religious discrimination.

A district court in New York has dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim against a hospital finding that terminating a respiratory therapist who refused to comply with hospital’s COVID-19 vaccination policy did not constitute religious discrimination. The court found that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged facts to seek damages for claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) as the employee alleged an injury. However the court found that the complaint failed to sufficiently state facts to support a claim for injunctive or declaratory relief for any claims as it did not allege that he continued to sustain any injury relief. The court found that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action for any of the former employee’s claims under Title VII and it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYSHRL claims (Brown v. South Shore University Hospital and Northwell Health, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-6374 (NJC)(ST) (E.D. N.Y. Jan. 10, 2025)).

A respiratory therapist brought a Title VII action against his former employers, two hospitals, after the hospitals terminated him for failing to comply with their mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. He refused to have the COVID vaccination because he held religious beliefs as a Christian that required him to refuse a vaccine that was produced, developed, and tested with aborted fetal cells. Initially, the employers began requiring employees to test for COVID-19 on a weekly basis but offered employees of getting the COVID-19 vaccine instead. Subsequently, the hospitals implemented a mandatory vaccination policy. A district judge issued a temporary restraining order that enjoined the state from enforcing section 2.61 of the N.Y.C.R.R.

The employee requested a religious exemption and requested certain specific accommodations. He indicated that he was willing to test for COVID-19 every time he went to work and to wear a mask at all times but his request for accommodation was denied. After a preliminary injunction was issued continuing the injunction that barred enforcement of section 2.61, the regulation was ultimately struck down. The employers denied the employee’s request and he subsequently filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and in May 2023, the EEOC issued a right to sue notice. He then initiated this action, alleging claims for religious discrimination under Title VII for disparate treatment, failure to accommodate, and disparate impact, and brought state claims under the NYSHRL for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in an interactive process and cooperative dialogue.

Article III standing. The court found that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged facts to seek damages for claims under Title VII and the NYSHRL as the employee alleged an injury in fact that is traceable to the employers’ alleged conduct—the employers’ termination of his employment as a respiratory therapist in February 2022. However, the complaint failed to allege facts to support the former employee’s standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief for any claims as it did not allege that he continued to sustain any injury or that it is likely that he would be injured again in the future. Furthermore, the damages the employee alleged arising from mental anguish and emotional distress did not constitute a sufficient basis for equitable relief absent a real and immediate threat of future injury resulting from the employers’ conduct. Therefore, the court dismissed the former employee’s declaratory and injunctive relief claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Failure to state a claim. The court found that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action for any of the former employee’s claims under Title VII and it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYSHRL claims.

Title VII religious discrimination claim. District courts have found that in cases in which a hospital has imposed a COVID-19 vaccination requirement as an employment requirement and an employee has not complied with it, this causes the employee to be considered not qualified for his position for purposes of bringing a Tile VII employment discrimination claim. Because the former employee was not qualified for the position as a respiratory therapist when the mandatory vaccination requirement went into effect, the amended complaint failed to state a plausible Title VII religious discrimination claim on the basis of disparate treatment. There was, therefore, no need for the court to consider whether the amended complaint sufficiently stated a plausible Title VII religious discrimination claim based on disparate treatment.

Title VII failure to accommodate claim. The former employee’s sole requested accommodation, if granted, would have caused the employers to violate section 2.61 of the N.Y.C.R.R. which required employers to deny requests for religious exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement. This would have imposed on them undue hardship as they would have risked being subject to penalties under New York public health laws, including loss of their licenses. Therefore, the court found that the amended complaint failed to state a Title VII religious accommodation claim.

Title VII disparate impact claim. Although the court found that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged the first element of a Title VII disparate impact claim—a challenged employment policy, it failed to allege facts that plausibly supported the second and third elements of the claim. It failed to provide factual allegations to support the existence of a plausible disparity between members and non-members of a protected group. Neither did it provide any statistics about the size of this asserted group. Furthermore, it offered conclusory allegations concerning the causal relationship between the challenged employment policy and the asserted but unsupported existence of a disparity.

NYSHRL claims. The amended complaint failed to state any federal claims and the federal claims were, therefore, dismissed. Because the case was in the early stage of litigation, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the former employee’s NYSHRL claims.

The case is No. 2:23-v-6374(NJC)(ST).

Judge: Choudhury, N.

Attorneys: James Mermigis (Law Office of James Mermigis) for Fred Brown. Lisa Marie Griffith (Littler Mendelson) for South Shore University Hospital and Northwell Health, Inc.

Companies: South Shore University Hospital; Northwell Health, Inc.

Cases: Covid19 ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination NewYorkNews