Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—E.D. Pa.: School for blind prevails on claims of staff who sought vaccine exemption, (Feb 19, 2025)

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

The school successfully argued that allowing unvaccinated staff to continue working in close contact with its students would pose significant health risks.

Former employees at Overbrook School for the Blind sued for religious discrimination after their exemptions to the school’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement were denied. A Pennsylvania federal district court excluded expert testimony presented by the plaintiffs, finding that the expert misinterpreted his sources, such as by misusing various studies or using selective reading of available data. The court referenced previous rulings that dismissed similar misinterpretations, concluding that the expert’s arguments were not scientifically sound and undermined his credibility. The court then granted summary judgment for the employer, holding that given the close-contact nature of the plaintiffs’ jobs, especially in assisting blind students with daily activities, Overbrook successfully argued that allowing unvaccinated staff to continue working would pose significant health risks (Righteous v. Overbrook School for the Blind, No. 23-846 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2025)).

School staff. The plaintiffs were employed at Overbrook School for the Blind in Philadelphia as para-educators or kitchen staff. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Overbrook implemented a vaccine mandate for all employees to mitigate the spread of the virus, after the school’s return-to-school plan was mired by quarantines resulting from numerous exposures to and infections from the virus.

Exemptions declined. The plaintiffs, citing religious beliefs, requested exemptions from the vaccine requirement. The court noted that most of the plaintiffs “worked in close contact with students, often sitting directly next to them when helping with their schoolwork, including assisting students with their Braille reading and helping them with their computers.” Overbrook denied their requests, and when the plaintiffs refused to get vaccinated, it terminated their employment.

The plaintiffs subsequently sued Overbrook in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA). Overbrook moved to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert witness and sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims.

Daubert motion. During discovery, the plaintiffs introduced an expert witness, and Overbrook moved to exclude his testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., which established that district courts were meant to serve as gatekeepers and only allow expert testimony to be heard by a jury on certain occasions.

The expert claimed that COVID-19 vaccines were ineffective at preventing transmission and reducing infection severity. He also argued that COVID-19 vaccines posed significant health risks, citing a study on myocarditis risks. However, the court found that he misinterpreted his sources, such as by misusing various studies or using selective reading of available data. The court referenced previous rulings that dismissed similar misinterpretations, concluding that the expert’s arguments were not scientifically sound and undermined his credibility.

Summary judgment. Overbrook moved for summary judgment, arguing that, even if the plaintiffs had a valid religious belief, accommodating them would pose an undue hardship. The court agreed, holding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact that accommodating plaintiffs’ religious beliefs would have placed an “undue hardship” on Overbrook’s operations. Before implementing the vaccine mandate, the school had already implemented other COVID-19 precautions, such as social distancing, masking, air filtration, and testing, but still faced repeated outbreaks, leading to staff shortages and disruptions that threatened the school’s ability to operate. Given the close-contact nature of the plaintiffs’ jobs, especially in assisting blind students with daily activities, Overbrook successfully argued that allowing unvaccinated staff to continue working would pose significant health risks. The plaintiffs failed to present admissible evidence to challenge’s claim of undue hardship: as the expert’s testimony was excluded, the plaintiffs lacked expert evidence to contest the vaccine’s effectiveness or necessity.

The case is No. 23-846.

Judge: Beetlestone, W.

Attorneys: Brian J. Foley (Law Offices of Brian J. Foley) for Divine Equality Righteous. Cassandra Jacobsen (Cozen O'Connor) for Overbrook School for the Blind.

Companies: Divine Equality Righteous; Overbrook School for the Blind

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Covid19 PennsylvaniaNews