Health Law Daily Wrap Up, HEALTH CARE EMPLOYMENT ISSUES—W.D. Tenn.: Claims of terminated lab tech, who declined COVID-19 vaccination accommodations, survive dismissal, (Apr 4, 2025)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

It was premature to determine whether the employee sincerely stated her religious beliefs.

A terminated lab technician plausibly pleaded Federal Civil Rights Act Title VII and Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) claims against her former employer, a hospital, held the federal district court in Memphis, Tennessee, in a dispute about the COVID-19 vaccination religious exemption accommodations the hospital proposed. Per a recent Sixth Circuit decision, the court said it did not need to apply the McDonnell Douglas evidentiary framework; the lab technician only needed to allege, as she did, denial of a religious accommodation combined with disparate treatment on the basis of religion. Determining the sincerity of her stated religious beliefs would have been premature at the pleading stage. The court accordingly denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss (Ragsdale v. Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare, No. 2:24-cv-02237-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 25, 2025)).

Background. A hospital lab technician complained about termination of her employment after she refused to comply with proposed alternatives to the hospital’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement. The lab technician alleged she sought a religious exemption from the vaccine requirement with the alternate accommodation that she wear a non-fitted surgical mask, that she continue social distancing, and that she be exempt from all COVID-19 testing. In response, the hospital proposed that she wear a respirator mask (typically, fitted per manufacturer instructions) and submit to social distancing and weekly COVID-19 testing in lieu of vaccination. However, the lab technician alleged that even those alternate conditions violated her religious beliefs.

The hospital moved to dismiss the lab technician’s complaint on two grounds: 1) grant of a religious exemption; and 2) insincerity of stated religious beliefs. The court ruled that both of the hospital’s dismissal arguments were premature.

Title VII. The court explained, first, that the Sixth Circuit has recently clarified that plaintiffs do not need to establish a prima facie case for Federal Civil Rights Act Title VII claims, like this one, to the extent the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework is evidentiary and not a pleading requirement. Compare Savel v. MetroHealth Sys., 96 F.4th 932, 943 (6th Cir. 2024) with McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Per Savel, a Title VII plaintiff need only plausibly allege denial of a religious accommodation combined with disparate treatment on the basis of religion. Here, the court held the lab technician plausibly alleged that the imposition of invasive nasal swab testing was against her religious beliefs and substantially burdened her religious practice in comparison to alternative testing methods.

The court also held it could not appropriately resolve the doubted sincerity of the lab technician’s religious beliefs on a motion to dismiss. The court quoted how the Sixth Circuit recently emphasized that “courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or plausibility of a religious claim.” Lucky v. Landmark Med. of Mich., P.C., 103 F.4th 1241, 1244 (6th Cir. 2024) (quoting Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 887 (1990)). The court said litigants need only plausibly allege that their actions are an “aspect” of religious observance, practice, and belief.

The court perceived that the lab technician’s claimed religious beliefs, about one’s body being a temple, were similar to those at issue in Lucky. The court said it could not ascertain the factual sincerity of those stated beliefs at this stage of the litigation. As in Lucky, a dismissal at this stage would have been a premature adjudication.

THRA. The lab technician’s Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) claim called for the same analysis as those under Title VII. The court held the THRA claim survived dismissal to the same extent the lab technician stated a plausible Title VII claim.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-02237-MSN-atc.

Judge: Norris, M.

Attorneys: Alexandria Scott (Gibson Perryman Law Firm) for Audrey Ragsdale. Jonathan C. Hancock (Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC) for Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare.

Companies: Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare

Cases: CaseDecisions Covid19 EmploymentNews LaboratoryNews TennesseeNews