Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—W.D. Pa.: University IT employee who objected to ‘wet labs’ can’t advance religious accommodation claim, (Aug 31, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The university’s medicine school departments used the wet labs to conduct research on animals, including monkeys, mice, rats, and goats.

Although a University of Pittsburgh IT department employee who follows Native American religious beliefs objected numerous times to being required to enter “wet labs” where research was conducted on animals, he did not allege he was disciplined for failing to comply with a job requirement that conflicted with those beliefs, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled, dismissing his Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim. His retaliation claims, however, based on his termination and the university’s failure to rehire him, survived the university’s motion (Shafer v. University of Pittsburgh, No. 2:24-cv-1278 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2026)).

Wet labs. During his nine-year tenure with the university’s IT department, the employee alleged he received positive evaluations and met all expectations. Beginning in 2016, he was assigned to the university’s health sciences department between 60 to 80 percent of the time where he was exposed to wet labs used by the school of medicine to conduct research on animals, including monkeys, mice, rats, and goats. Employees who work in those labs, the court observed, refer to animal research and testing as “animal sacrifice.”

Religious beliefs. The employee, who follows Native American religious beliefs and regularly attends Lakota and Navajo religious ceremonies, had religious objections to the animal research and testing in the wet labs, and to having to work in close proximity to that research and testing, which, he asserted, was incompatible with his belief that animals are sacred.

When he told his manager in 2018 that he wanted an assignment outside of the medical research field, the manager purportedly told him he would find him another assignment. He not only never received an assignment outside that field, but also, in 2021, he was assigned to assist in opening a new lab within the ophthalmology department where he saw a seven-to-eight-year-old research monkey that was covered in blood and had permanent head implants.

He again told his manager he was uncomfortable with animal research and again, unsuccessfully, requested a reassignment. In January 2022, he spoke with his manager about his religious beliefs and his objection to animal research but the manager never escalated his request to HR and he was never reassigned to a different department while numerous new hires were allegedly assigned to roles that did not involve animal research or testing.

Get over it. In June 2023, the employee was informed that he was being reassigned from the “Pitt IT” department to the Health Sciences IT department where his entire work assignment would involve a department that engaged in animal research. When he objected, he was told that if he could “get over” his religious beliefs, he would have lots of good opportunities. He reiterated his objection, and he was informed that he would need to speak with an assistant vice chancellor for IT.

While waiting for a meeting with an assistant vice chancellor, he again raised his religious objection about his reassignment to his manager, his manager’s supervisor, and the office of the chief information officer. The individuals he spoke to told him not to worry and asked him to stop making his case.

Laid off. In July 2023, the assistant vice chancellor informed him that he was being laid off. In a subsequent meeting with the chief information officer, he was told that the university did not offer religious accommodations related to animal research because the university as a whole supported such research. Between the time he was notified of his layoff and his last day of employment, he applied for a systems analyst position and although he was listed as a “candidate under consideration,” he claimed that during an investigation into his complaint of religious discrimination, the hiring manager and others stopped communicating with him.

No longer under consideration. The investigation was closed in October 2023 and in November, he applied for an outreach and response specialist position. On November 22, the EEOC provided notice to the university that the employee had filed a charge against it and seven days later, the university changed his application status for the position to “candidate no longer under consideration.” The university reposted the position in January 2024, the employee reapplied, and the following month, after submitting its position statement to the EEOC, the university once again changed his application status to “candidate no longer under consideration.”

Failure to accommodate. Arguing that the employee’s Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim should be dismissed, the university pointed out that he did not allege any job requirement that conflicted with his claimed religious objection to animal research or that he refused to perform any job requirement or was disciplined for such refusal. His job, the university asserted, did not require that he perform animal research himself but rather that he work in close proximity to those who did and being required to work near others who performed that work was not a basis for a discrimination claim.

Finding no dispute at this stage that the employee pled he has a sincerely held religious belief against animal testing or that he told the university about a purported conflict between his belief and a job requirement, the court explained that the issue was whether he pled facts that could establish a conflict between his religious belief and a job requirement, and whether he pled facts showing that he was disciplined for failing to comply with such a conflicting requirement.

While the employee argued that the job requirement at issue was the obligation to regularly enter wet labs as part of his work in the health sciences department where animal testing took place, resulting in him being exposed to such testing and to those who perform it, the court agreed that he failed to allege he was disciplined for failing to comply with a job requirement that conflicted with his religious beliefs.

To the contrary, said the court, he alleged he “received positive performance evaluations throughout his employment and met all expectations.” He did not allege he failed to report to a wet lab or that the university took adverse action against him for improper reasons. Because he failed to allege an essential element of a failure-to-accommodate claim, that he was disciplined for failing to comply with a conflicting requirement, the court dismissed this claim.

Retaliation based on termination. In moving to dismiss his retaliation claim based on his termination, the university pointed to the 18 months between his initial objection on religious grounds and his lay off. Denying the motion, the court explained that the “mere passage of time is not legally conclusive proof against retaliation.” The issue of causation, said the court, can more effectively be addressed following discovery.

Retaliation based on failure to rehire. Allowing his retaliation claim based on the failure to rehire to also advance, the court noted that the university only challenged his failure to plausibly allege he was rejected for the positions under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. At this stage of the proceedings, said the court, he set forth sufficient allegations to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery would reveal evidence that religion was a motivating or determinative factor in the decision not to rehire him.

Religious discrimination as well. He alleged that he repeatedly objected to his workplace assignment on religious grounds and requested religious accommodations over a period of 18 months; that after being informed that he was going to be laid off, he submitted a religious discrimination complaint and notified HR and management about the complaint; and that after he was notified of his layoff but before his last day of employment, he applied for a systems analyst position and was told he was likely to be hired but the hiring manager and others stopped communicating with him about the position after his last day of work and while his complaint was pending.

He further alleged that after the university closed the investigation on his complaint, he applied for another position but within one week of the EEOC providing notice of his charge, the university changed his application status for that position to “no longer under consideration.” These facts, the employee argued, could support an inference that his religious status was a motivating or determinative factor in the decision not to rehire him.

At this early stage, said the court, it was satisfied that he pled sufficient facts to allege that his religion was a motivating or determinative factor in the university’s failure to hire him such that dismissal was not warranted.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-1278.

Judge: Colville, R.

Attorneys: Mark A. Johnson (Elzer Law Firm) for Richard Shafer. Jonathan D. Marcus (Marcus & Shapira) for University of Pittsburgh.

Companies: University of Pittsburgh

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge PennsylvaniaNews