Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—M.D. Fla.: PGA Tour prevails against COVID-19 vaccine exemption claim, (Mar 17, 2025)

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

The plaintiff failed to show that PGA treated similarly situated employees outside his protected class more favorably, nor could he show pretext.

A long-time employee of PGA Tour, Inc. (PGA) since 2007 filed a lawsuit against his former employer after being terminated for non-compliance with the company’s COVID-19 safety protocols, even while having received religious accommodations. A Florida federal court granted summary judgment for the PGA, holding that the employee failed to show that PGA treated similarly situated employees outside of his protected class more favorably, nor could he show pretext. The employee’s retaliation claim also failed, with the court holding that there was no causal connection between the plaintiff’s termination and his request for a religious exemption (Nealis v. PGA Tour, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-623-TJC-MCR (M. D. Fla. Mar. 13, 2025)).

A former PGA employee filed a lawsuit against his former employer after being terminated for non-compliance with the company’s COVID-19 safety protocols.

Return to office. By May 2021, PGA had encouraged employees to voluntarily return to the office, with unvaccinated or partially vaccinated employees required to wear masks and socially distance. Initially, the organization followed an “honor system” where employees were not required to disclose their vaccination status, but by August required employees to report their vaccination status and complete a survey if they were not vaccinated.

Employees who remained unvaccinated for religious or medical reasons had to submit an exemption request by September 15, 2021. All unvaccinated employees, regardless of exemption status, were required to follow safety protocols, including wearing masks at work, weekly COVID-19 testing, and reporting test results weekly. PGA warned that non-compliance with these protocols could result in disciplinary action, including termination.

Exemption request. The employee objected on religious and other grounds but did not submit his exemption request until October 19, 2021, a month past the deadline. His exemption was approved within a week, but he was still required to comply with the safety protocols. He objected to the safety protocols, noting that he felt masking visibly identified unvaccinated employees, amounting to religious discrimination, but he ultimately agreed to comply. Hel also objected to nasal testing due to its intrusive nature and was accommodated with saliva testing, which he accepted.

Reporting requirements. In addition, the employee refused to use the PGA reporting system, citing privacy and religious concerns. PGA extended deadlines for the employee’s compliance multiple times, but he continued to object, proposing to disclose his results only to a trusted contact without any record-keeping. PGA rejected this, citing the necessity for contact tracing, federal OSHA requirements, and public health compliance.

On November 12, 2021, the employee was terminated for non-compliance with the testing result reporting requirement. He subsequently filed suit alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under both Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA).

Proposed comparators. First addressing the employee’s religious discrimination claims, the court applied the burden-shifting analysis under McDonnell Douglas, ultimately finding that the employee had failed to show that PGA treated similarly situated employees outside his protected class more favorably.

Three co-workers who were allowed to work from home were identified by the employee, but the court found them not to be valid comparators, as they worked in different positions and teams, their work-from-home requests were granted for medical reasons after PGA determined on-site collaboration was unnecessary in their roles, and the employee’s position required on-site collaboration, as even he acknowledged in rejecting an alternative, more remote workstation. As the employee could not establish that similarly situated employees outside his religious group were treated more favorably, he failed to prove religious discrimination.

Legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. Moreover, the court held, even if the employee had established a prima facie case, PGA had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating him: noncompliance with a well-documented, pre-announced safety policy. The protocols applied to all unvaccinated employees, regardless of the reason for their status, and there was no evidence of pretext or discriminatory intent beyond the employee’s personal interpretation of PGA’s workplace policies.

Failure to accommodate. Regarding the employee’s failure to accommodate claims, the court first assumed for summary judgment purposes that the employee had shown a bona fide religious objection, even though his initial objections centered on privacy and he did not explain how submitting test results via email violated his religious beliefs beyond referencing his exemption request. However, the court held that the employee’s requested accommodations would have presented an undue hardship to PGA.

Although the employee’s beliefs were legitimate, his proposed accommodation was unreasonable, given that his request to report test results privately to a single person without them being recorded or shared violated workplace safety policies and potential OSHA requirements. Further, his alternative accommodation request to work fully remotely was denied because his role required on-site collaboration.

Retaliation claims. The court found no causal connection between the employee’s termination and his request for a religious exemption. PGA had communicated months in advance that failure to comply with safety protocols could result in termination, the court noted, and the employee was not the only employee required to follow the safety protocols. His termination resulted from continued noncompliance, not from his religious exemption request or complaints. Courts have held that if an adverse action is consistent with pre-established policies, it does not amount to retaliation, and as PGA simply enforced an existing policy, the employee failed to prove retaliation. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favor of PGA.

The case is No. 3:23-cv-623-TJC-MCR.

Judge: Corrigan, T.

Attorneys: Marie A. Mattox (Marie A. Mattox) for Patrick Nealis. Thomas R. Brice, Jr. (McGuireWoods) for PGA Tour, Inc.

Companies: PGA Tour, Inc.

Cases: Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation Covid19 FloridaNews