Health Law Daily Wrap Up, HEALTH CARE EMPLOYMENT ISSUES—D. Md.: Evidentiary requests denied in COVID-19 vaccine mandate religious discrimination case, (May 30, 2025)

By Leah S. Poniatowski, J.D.

Employee’s case failed for lack of diligence in pursuing expert testimony and unsupported arguments against employer’s hardship assertions.

An occupational therapist employed at a skilled nursing facility could not add an expert in her religious discrimination lawsuit against her former employer on the basis that she did not show diligence in having the expert’s testimony included during discovery, nor did she proffer sufficient arguments to counter her employer’s undue hardship that employees not vaccinated against COVID-19 or influenza during the peak of the pandemic risked transmitting the disease to their vulnerable elderly residents and other co-workers, the federal district court in Maryland ruled, granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment (Dodson v. Lutheran Village at Millers Grant, Inc., No EA-23-169 (D. Md. May. 22, 2025)).

Background. A licensed occupational therapist and integrative nutrition health coach began working at the Lutheran Village, a skilled nursing facility in Maryland in 2019. As part of her work, she is in close proximity to the residents she is helping, often physically touching them during their care, including client transfers and similar assistance. The facility had a “Team Member Vaccination Requirement” policy that required annual vaccinations unless a religious or medical exemption was granted.

In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, the policy was updated that October. The policy stated that “[b]ecause we serve individuals with high health risks, team member requests for exemption from the vaccination requirement will generally not be granted. Doing so would likely create an undue hardship on the organization’s ability to maintain a safe and healthful environment for residents, team members, and others.”

The therapist, a Christian for 24 years and member of a church, sought a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine in January 2021 as she stated that none of her church leaders sanctioned receiving the vaccine. Because the vaccine at that time was “under emergency use authorization only” and there it was new, the employer granted her exemption. She used personal protective equipment when working with the residents, maintained the sanitary and precaution hygiene, and participated in regular testing.

In September 2021, the facility issued a policy that mandated vaccination against COVID-19 unless an employee was granted a religious or medical exemption. The therapist requested a religious exemption, asserting that she opposed receiving vaccines that used aborted fetal tissue. However, her request was denied.

The facility had received guidance from religious leaders, the state department of health, and the federal CDC, and explained in the denial letter that her exemption would “create a higher risk of the spread of COVID-19 to residents and team members.” The facility noted that much had changed when it granted her earlier exemption, particularly as other faith leaders had come to encourage receiving the vaccine and that it would create an undue hardship on the facility because of its objective “to provide a safe place for residents to live and team members to work,” particularly as the organization had many residents and employees die from the disease.

The therapist responded that her religious beliefs had not changed and her religious leaders supported not receiving the vaccination. The facility followed up with a reminder of the vaccination deadline and that she risked being put on short-term leave and being terminated. Thereafter, her employment was terminated in February 2022. She filed a lawsuit against the facility in December 2022, asserting her former employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e et seq., for refusing to accommodate her religious beliefs and terminating her employment.

Procedural history. The initial discovery deadline was set for August 28, 2023, but the court granted a deadline to extend the deadline until near the end of December 2023 after counsel entered an appearance on her behalf in August. Other procedural actions ensued and, ultimately, the court extended discovery until November 2024 and the dispositive motion deadline to December 2024. The facility timely renewed its motion for summary judgment. In the case at bar, the therapist filed a motion for leave to produce evidence and modify the scheduling order and the facility’s renewed motion for summary judgment.

Motion for leave. The court was unpersuaded that the therapist needed more time tor discovery, stating that she had not complied with the federal procedural rule requirements because her motion was not supported with an affidavit or declaration and, “[m]ore fundamentally, she did not exercise diligence in pursuing expert discovery. The court explained that the discovery deadline had been extended three times, she had the benefit of counsel, and thus, had “more than ample” time.

Moreover, the therapist’s assertion that she needed more time because she had not known “the basis for Lutheran Village’s justification for [t]his vaccine mandate” until the facility’s corporate representative was deposed was not supported by the evidence. The court held that the facility offered its rationale in her accommodation denial letter, which she quoted in her complaint. Additionally, the facility consistently used the term “undue hardship” through its correspondence with the therapist and, thus, the facility’s position has been clear. Finally, the court held that the therapist was not diligent and at this point in the litigation, she could not “foist an untimely, previously undisclosed expert upon her adversary or insert it into the [c]ourt’s summary judgment analysis.” Therefore, the court would not consider the expert report in its analysis of the facility’s motion for summary judgment.

Motion for summary judgment. In the context of the therapist’s work environment, the impact of the COVID-19 virus, and the expectations on the nursing facility, the vaccine mandate as a condition for employment was not unreasonable, the court held. The court evaluated the nature and practice of the therapist’s work at the facility, observing that it vaccination requirements for healthcare workers have been widely upheld in federal courts. The court added that the consequences of contracting COVID-19 and the ease of transmission of the disease elevated the risk of death or disability to an already vulnerable population, and that the organization had experienced several fatalities among the residents and staff. The facility supported its position by also presenting guidance from both state and federal public health resources, religious leaders support for vaccination, and the data on the disease. Thus, the facility met its burden to show that granting a religious exemption would have been an undue hardship on the facility to adequately care for its residents and staff.

Moreover, the court was unpersuaded by the therapist’s arguments. First, the court noted that several of her assertions lacked evidentiary support, particularly the contentions that asymptomatic individuals do not present a danger of transmitting the virus, and that a small number of employees exempted would not increase the risk of spreading the virus. The court found that she did not properly provide evidence challenging the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine and disagreed that the facility needed to provide medical or scientific support of the vaccine’s efficacy or how close proximity increases the risk of virus transmission.

Second, the lack of a financial impact does not translate to no undue hardship, the court held. The facility did not base its hardship on economic costs, instead arguing that the health and safety of its residents and employees was paramount. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized noneconomic undue hardship. Additionally, the facility’s consultation with religious leaders and reliance on public health officials were not insufficient because it showed that the facility examined a broad range of data when considering her accommodation request. Relatedly, the initial emergency use authorization of the vaccine was irrelevant in light of the volume of public health recommendations and mandates.

Finally, the therapist’s argument that she “strictly complied” with the facility’s virus prevention requirements was unsupported because she openly did not comply with the vaccine mandate. Further, her assertion that using PPE, adequate distance, sanity protocols, and regular testing complied was reasonable was not supported by any evidence. Additionally, controlling case law supports the facility not testing a proposed accommodation before evaluating its reasonableness, especially in light of the risk COVID-19 presented to the residents and staff. Therefore, the facility’s renewed motion for summary judgment was granted.

The case is Civil Action No. EA-23-169.

Judge: Aslan, E.

Attorneys: Terrell N. Roberts, III (Roberts & Wood) for Cara Elizabeth Liberto Dodson. Patrick Michael Wachter (Franklin & Prokopik, P.C.) for The Lutheran Village at Millers Grant, Inc.

Companies: The Lutheran Village at Millers Grant, Inc.

Cases: CaseDecisions Covid19 EmploymentNews MarylandNews