Health Law Daily Wrap Up, HEALTH CARE EMPLOYMENT ISSUES—D. Or.: Employees denied religious exemption to COVID-19 vaccine requirement fail on motion to amend, (May 19, 2025)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The employees sought to add disparate treatment claims to their complaint 18 months after the amendment deadline passed.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied a consolidated motion for leave to amend by four former employees of a PeaceHealth facility who claimed the employer failed to accommodate them by denying them religious exemptions from state-mandated COVID-19 vaccine requirements. The court found such amendment would cause prejudice to the employer (Navarette v. PeaceHealth, No. 6:22-cv-00181-AA;Hunter v. PeaceHealth, No. 6:22-cv-00187-AA; Berra v. PeaceHealth, No. 6:22-cv-00219-AA; and Trimmier v. PeaceHealth, No. 6:22-cv-00243-AA (D. Or. May 14, 2025)).

Allegations. Four former employees of PeaceHealth brought religious discrimination lawsuits against the employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming failure to accommodate. In August 2021, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) issued a rule requiring all Oregon health care providers and staff to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by September 30, 2021, subject to a medical or religious exemption as provided under federal law. The employees alleged that the employer notified them that it planned to implement a vaccine mandate in the workplace and that they could apply for a religious exemption to the vaccine requirement. The employees applied for and were granted religious exemptions; however, they were ultimately placed on unpaid administrative leave and later terminated. The court consolidated the four cases, and the former employees filed a motion to amend their complaints and a motion to consolidate the cases going forward.

Leave to amend. In deciding whether to grant leave to amend, a court considers five factors: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Of the four factors weighing against granting leave to amend, prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight. The former employees asserted that they pleaded a disparate treatment claim when they alleged that the employer’s failure to provide reasonable accommodation was motivated by religious animus and used as a pretext for unlawful discrimination. However, because the employer was required by law to implement a vaccine mandate and exemption process, the court cannot infer religious discrimination based on the allegation the employer implemented a vaccine mandate and exemption process. The court explained that conclusory allegations of religious animus and pretext, without more, do not permit the inference that the mandate and exemption process unlawfully discriminated against the former employees. The court concluded that the former employees failed to allege even the minimum facts necessary to state a disparate treatment claim and the grounds showing entitlement to relief.

Discovery on failure to accommodate claims. The court found that the employees agreed to discovery based on the failure to accommodate claims; thus, the employees were limited to discovery on failure to accommodate claims and not disparate treatment claims. The court further found that the former employees could have alleged other claims earlier; that prior counsel’s decisions were imputed to new counsel; that there had been undue delay in seeking leave to amend, as, from the start, the employees were in possession of the facts needed to allege any other Title VII discrimination claims; and that the former employees had been told repeatedly that their discovery requests exceeded the scope of their failure to accommodate claim. Finally, the court found bad faith on the part of the employees, as they stalled and thwarted discovery throughout the litigation. The court denied the employees’ consolidated motion for leave to amend.

Consolidation. In addition, the court reasoned that even though the employees had worked at the same hospital and were subject to the same policies, each employee must prove her own failure to accommodate claim, including her own sincere religious-based reason for opposing the vaccine. Furthermore, PeaceHealth must prove its defense as to each employee. The unique questions of fact and law in each case outweighed any potential gain of judicial economy. Therefore, the court denied the employees’ motion to consolidate the cases going forward.

The cases are Nos. 6:22-cv-00181-AA; 6:22-cv-00187-AA; 6:22-cv-00219-AA; and 6:22-cv-00243-AA.

Judge: Aiken, A.

Attorneys: Geoffrey C. Chackel (Chackel Law, PC) for Brenda Salinas Navarette; Shonna Hunter; Jessica Berra; and Nanette Trimmier. Kelly S. Riggs (Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt) for PeaceHealth and PeaceHealth d/b/a PeaceHealth Riverbend.

Companies: PeaceHealth, PeaceHealth d/b/a PeaceHealth Riverbend

Cases: CaseDecisions Covid19 EmploymentNews GCNNews OregonNews