Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—W.D. Va.: UVA Health vaccine policy supports partial class certification, (May 1, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

A vaccination-era exemption process that favored certain faiths supports class treatment for one group, while individualized inquiries defeat certification for others raising abortion-based or accommodation claims.

A vaccination exemption process that presumptively favored certain religions over others can be challenged on a classwide basis under Title VII, while related claims tied to abortion objections and individualized accommodation requests must proceed, if at all, on a narrower footing. A federal district court in Virginia addressed whether employees of a university health system could pursue religious discrimination claims as a class after losing their jobs for refusing COVID-19 vaccination. The ruling draws a clear line between claims grounded in a uniform policy and those requiring individualized proof, allowing one proposed class to proceed while rejecting two others (Phillips v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, No. 3:22-cv-00075 (W.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2026)).

Policy-based claims. The dispute arises from a 2021 vaccination policy by the University of Virginia Health System (UVA Health) that allowed employees to request religious exemptions. Training materials guiding that process identified six religions with “known prohibition[s] against vaccination” and instructed that requests from adherents of those faiths should be approved absent suspicion of dishonesty. Employees outside those faiths were subject to additional scrutiny.

Employees whose requests were denied and who declined vaccination were terminated. They brought suit alleging religious discrimination under Title VII and sought to certify three classes tied to the exemption process. The ruling allows certification of the “Disfavored Religions Class,” consisting of employees who requested religious exemptions, did not belong to the identified faiths, and suffered adverse employment action.

The decision centers on whether UVA Health’s exemption framework operated as a uniform, discriminatory policy. The answer, for this class, was yes. The record showed a standardized procedure that treated employees differently based on their religious affiliation. That common policy supplied the cohesion required for class treatment.

Statistical evidence reinforced that conclusion: all requests from employees identifying with the listed religions were granted, while only a small fraction of other requests were approved. That disparity supported the existence of a pattern or practice that could be assessed using common proof.

The court emphasized that the key question for the class is whether the policy itself violated Title VII by privileging certain religious beliefs. That issue can be resolved in a single stroke for all class members; consequently, commonality and predominance were satisfied.

Certification requirements met. The court found the proposed class ascertainable based on employment records identifying exemption requests and outcomes. Numerosity was satisfied by an estimated class size exceeding 200 individuals.

Commonality and typicality likewise were grounded in the shared challenge to a single exemption policy. Although class members experienced different forms of adverse action, those differences did not defeat typicality because all claims arose from the same alleged discriminatory framework. The adequacy requirement was also met. There was no indication of conflicts between the named plaintiffs and the class, and counsel were deemed capable of representing the group.

Common questions were found to predominate over individual issues. The central liability question concerns the legality of the exemption process itself. Individualized inquiries, such as the sincerity of particular beliefs or entitlement to accommodation, were deemed appropriate for later stages of the case. The court also found that class treatment was superior to individual litigation. Absent certification, dozens of similar cases would proceed separately, raising identical legal questions about the same policy. A single proceeding promotes efficiency and consistency.

Abortion-based class. In contrast, the proposed “Abortion Objectors Class” did not meet the same standard. That class sought to group employees who objected to vaccination based on the use of fetal cell lines or related concerns. Members of that class could not identify a uniform policy governing how those objections were evaluated. Instead, the evidence showed individualized assessments focused on sincerity and the specific content of each request.

Although the employees pointed to high denial rates and internal commentary, those facts did not establish a consistent decision-making framework. The absence of a common policy meant that liability would turn on why each individual request was denied. The court underscored that statistical disparities alone are insufficient without a link to a specific discriminatory practice. Without that connection, the claims lack the “glue” necessary for classwide resolution.

The individualized nature of the objections further undermined commonality. Employees articulated a range of beliefs, from concerns about complicity in abortion to broader theological positions. Evaluating those claims would require employee-by-employee analysis, making class treatment impractical.

Accommodation claims. The third proposed class, focused on failure to accommodate religious beliefs, was also denied certification. Unlike the disfavored religions claim, which challenges a policy, failure-to-accommodate claims depend on individualized elements. Each employee must show a bona fide religious belief, notice to the employer, and discipline for noncompliance, followed by an assessment of whether accommodation would impose undue hardship.

Those elements require fact-specific inquiries into sincerity, communication, and workplace conditions. The court found that such individualized determinations dominate the analysis, preventing classwide adjudication. The employees argued that a pattern of rejecting requests as insincere could supply a common issue. That argument failed because a uniform approach to evaluating sincerity applicable across the class was not established.

The court also clarified that the pattern-or-practice framework applies to disparate treatment claims, not to failure-to-accommodate theories. As a result, employees pursuing accommodation claims must proceed on an individual basis unless they can identify a consistent policy that eliminates individualized inquiries.

Scope. The certified class applies only to UVA Health, the entity directly responsible for the exemption policy. The decision does not extend classwide relief to UVA Imaging, which was alleged to be a joint employer, leaving that issue for later development. The ruling also narrows the class definition by excluding job applicants, citing practical difficulties in identifying which applicants were denied exemptions.

The case is No. 3:22-cv-00075.

Judge: Ballou, R.

Attorneys: Charles Bennett Molster, III (Law Offices of Charles B. Molster, III PLLC) for Dwayne Phillips. Robert Martin Tata (Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP) for Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia.

Companies: Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination ClassActions Discharge Covid19 VirginiaNews