Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—E.D. Pa.: COVID vaccine religious discrimination case against Philadelphia hospital proceeds to trial, (Jun 3, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

A jury must decide whether a former employee’s religious objections to the vaccine were genuine and whether accommodation would have created a substantial operational burden.

A federal court in Pennsylvania has denied a children’s hospital’s motion for summary judgment in a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by a former biomedical engineering supervisor who was terminated for refusing to comply with the facility’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The court found that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether the employee’s objections were based on sincerely held religious beliefs and whether granting him an exemption would have created an undue hardship for the hospital. The court ruled that these credibility determinations and factual disputes must be resolved by a jury rather than decided as a matter of law (Glover v. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, No. 23-0463 (E.D. Pa. May 29, 2025)).

CHOP. The dispute started with events that unfolded at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. In August 2021, CHOP’s chief executive officer issued a vaccine mandate requiring all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by October 20, 2021, unless they qualified for religious or medical exemptions.

Accommodation request. The plaintiff, who had worked as a supervisor in CHOP’s Biomedical Engineering Department since December 2017, submitted a religious accommodation request in September 2021. In his initial request, he cited his Christian faith and referenced passages from the Book of Revelation, interpreting certain verses to mean that the vaccine represented a prophetic timeline involving poison and toxicity.

The employee stated he had been practicing Christianity for 20 years and was affiliated with Church International since December 2020. He also acknowledged that he had not previously sought exemptions for other vaccines, including the annual influenza vaccine required by CHOP.

Hospital’s denial and appeal process. CHOP denied the initial exemption request, stating that the employee had not sufficiently demonstrated that his sincerely held religious beliefs prohibited vaccination. The hospital allowed him to appeal this decision, which he did in a timely manner.

In his appeal, the plaintiff expanded on his religious objections, citing concerns about the purported use of aborted fetal cells in vaccine development. He argued that taking the vaccine would violate his belief that his body is God’s temple, and that the vaccine was unclean according to biblical teachings. He also referenced biblical commandments against murder, stating that abortion is “gravely wrong at every stage.”

However, the appeal also included non-religious arguments, including constitutional claims about experimental vaccines and suggestions that “other treatments,” such as hydroxychloroquine, were being suppressed for sinister reasons. He argued that the low fatality rates of COVID-19 meant there should be no need for anyone to worry about dying from the coronavirus.

Termination. CHOP denied the appeal, stating that the evidence provided did not support the assertion that the employee’s beliefs were religious in nature or sincerely held. The hospital noted that he had expressed that his constitutional right not to take an experimental vaccine was more important than a religious objection.

After the employee continued to refuse vaccination, CHOP terminated his employment in November 2021. He subsequently filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and eventually sued CHOP in federal court, alleging religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. CHOP responded with a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the hospital was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination.

Religious belief claims. The district court applied a three-factor test used in the Third Circuit to determine whether the plaintiff's beliefs qualify as religious. This analysis examines whether beliefs address fundamental and ultimate questions about deep matters, are comprehensive in nature, and are accompanied by certain formal and external signs.

The court found that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to all three factors. Regarding fundamental questions, the court noted that the plaintiff’s beliefs addressed issues of “life and death, right and wrong, and good and evil,” particularly through his opposition to abortion based on biblical teachings.

As to the comprehensiveness factor, the court determined that the plaintiff’s religious reasons were not merely isolated ideas but stemmed from his reading of the Bible and of Christian teachings. As to the external signs factor, the court pointed to the employee’s “20 years of practicing Christianity” and his affiliation with Church International.

Sincerity of religious beliefs. CHOP argued that the plaintiff’s beliefs were not sincerely held, pointing to his inconsistent positions regarding vaccines generally and his acknowledgment that he had not previously objected to other required vaccines, including the annual flu shot. The hospital also noted that he did not develop beliefs about fetal cells and vaccines until after the mandate was issued.

However, the court ruled that these arguments went to the plaintiff’s credibility, which is properly left for a jury to determine. The court emphasized that at the summary judgment stage, all justifiable inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party. A reasonable jury could look to the plaintiff’s decades of “practicing Christianity,” his church affiliation, and his biblical references when explaining his vaccine opposition and conclude that his beliefs are sincerely held.

Undue hardship. Even if the plaintiff could establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination, CHOP argued that accommodating his request would have created an undue hardship. The hospital contended that allowing an unvaccinated employee to work during the pandemic, particularly during the surge of the Delta variant, would have exposed patients, families, and coworkers to COVID-19.

CHOP had implemented an accommodation policy for exempted employees that included physical distancing, twice-weekly testing, daily symptom tracking, and wearing surgical masks. Despite these measures, the hospital maintained that granting the plaintiff an exemption would have been substantially burdensome because his job involved patient interaction, including entering high-risk patient rooms.

The plaintiff countered the undue hardship argument by pointing to CHOP’s treatment of other employees. He presented evidence that the hospital had granted religious exemptions to other employees who worked directly with patients, including clinical nurses in the neonatal intensive care unit and emergency department, as well as a physician assistant in surgical services.

The court found this evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether accommodating the plaintiff would have truly created an undue hardship for CHOP. The court noted that, despite the plaintiff’s patient-facing responsibilities, the hospital had seemingly granted exemptions to other employees with similar or even more direct patient contact.

The case is No. 23-0463.

Judge: Slomsky, J.

Attorneys: David S. Dessen (Dessen Moses & Rossitto) for Donald Glover. Neil J. Hamburg (Law Offices of Neil J. Hamburg) for the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

Companies: Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Covid19 PennsylvaniaNews