Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—N.D. Ill.: Pharmacist who refused COVID vaccine can’t advance failure-to-accommodate claim, (Sep 10, 2025)

By Molly Platnick

The court found a county health system successfully raised a Title VII undue hardship defense against the former employee.

The federal district court in Illinois granted Cook County Health’s motion for summary judgment in a case brought by a former employee who was discharged after refusing to comply with its COVID-19 vaccination policy. The employee alleged the health system was liable under Title VII for failing to accommodate her religious practices and subjecting her to disparate treatment. In response, the county raised an undue hardship defense, contending it could not have exempted the employee without endangering staff and patients. The court ruled the employee did not adequately respond to the health system’s defenses nor raise sufficient evidence to show disparate treatment (Mason v. Cook County, No. 23 C 16339 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 2025)).

The county health system put in place a “Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination for Personnel Policy” in August 2021. The policy carved out exemptions for staff who declined the vaccine because of a medical condition or sincerely held religious belief. However, in September 2021, the health system limited exemptions to employees “whose duties could be performed on a fully remote basis.”

Exemption request. The employee worked as a pharmacist at a county hospital alongside 20 pharmacists and 40 technicians and part of her role was to counsel patients at the pharmacy window. In August 2021, she submitted a request for an exemption from the health system’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, stating “the vaccine mandate runs counter to my Christian beliefs.”

Termination. The following month, the health system’s Equal Employment Opportunity director denied the pharmacist’s request, explaining her failure to comply with the vaccination requirement would “compromise workplace safety, infringe upon the rights of our workforce, patients, and visitors, and otherwise pose an undue hardship to [the hospital].” The pharmacist still refused to obtain a COVID shot and, after a disciplinary hearing in January 2022, the health system terminated her employment.

The former employee brought this case in federal court, alleging the county health system violated Title VII when it denied her a reasonable religious accommodation and subsequently terminated her employment.

Failure to accommodate. The court declined to decide the “religious legitimacy” of the pharmacist’s claims and only analyzed the county health system’s undue hardship defense. The employee argued that the county could not establish undue hardship because “maintaining the status quo” of masking and social distancing would not have substantially increased costs. The county, however, offered evidence that masking, social distancing, and testing were not sufficient to prevent safety risks at their facilities. The court found based on these facts that there was no genuine dispute the employee could have continued as a pharmacist without jeopardizing staff and patient health, nor could she perform her duties offsite.

The pharmacist’s primary counterevidence was a reference to “Sanitarian I in the Department of Public Health,” who was not vaccinated as of October 2021 but was allowed to keep her job. However, the Department of Public Health is only an affiliate of the county health system and does not have offices within hospitals. The court found the unnamed health department official was “not legitimately comparable” to the pharmacist, who interacted with patients and shared an office with 60 other employees. The court concluded that the county was entitled to summary judgment because it successfully raised an undue hardship defense, showing it could not grant the pharmacist an exemption from its vaccine policy without putting staff and patients at risk.

Disparate treatment. The pharmacist next argued that Sanitarian I, the unvaccinated health department employee, was evidence of “disparate treatment.” Rejecting this assertion, the court explained that there cannot be disparate treatment where, as discussed above, the parties are employed by distinct offices.

The case is No. 23 C 16339.

Judge: Kennelly, K.

Attorneys: Jonathan D. Lubin (Law Offices of Jonathan D. Lubin) for Brooke Mason. Kathleen Cunniff Ori, Cook County State's Attorney's Office, for Cook County.

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Covid19 Discharge PublicEmployees IllinoisNews