Health Law Daily Wrap Up, HEALTH CARE EMPLOYMENT ISSUES—W.D. Va.: Lawsuit alleging COVID-19 vaccine religious discrimination dismissed in part, (May 30, 2025)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

A former employee’s claims brought under Title VII were time-barred, however, a failure to accommodate claim could proceed.

The federal district court in Harrisonburg, Virginia granted a motion to dismiss Title VII claims brought by a former nurse who was employed by Valley Health System in a suit alleging religious discrimination after finding the Title VII claims were time barred. A former nurse employed by the hospital brought a suit alleging that Valley Health violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA) by denying his request for a religious accommodation to its vaccination policy. Although the court dismissed the Title VII claims, the court did allow the former employee’s claims for failure to accommodate under the VHRA to proceed, as the claim was cognizable under the 2021 VHRA (McDowell v. Valley Health System, No. 5:25-cv-00002 (W.D. Va. May. 21, 2025)).

Background. The plaintiff is a registered nurse and was a former employee at Winchester Medical Center, which is part of Valley Health System. In July 2021, while the former employee was working for Valley Health, the company announced that it would require all employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. The employee requested a religious accommodation to the vaccination requirement on the ground that it conflicted with his Christian faith. Valley Health denied his request but granted religious exemptions to several other employees who were alleged to be similarly situated. Valley Health then terminated McDowell’s employment on September 24, 2021, for his failure to receive the vaccine.

On November 23, 2021, the former employee filed discrimination charges with the the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Virginia Office of the Attorney General Office of Civil Rights (OCR). He received an EEOC Notice of Right to Sue on September 13, 2022, and an OCR notice on March 1, 2023. He then sued Valley Health in the Circuit Court of Warren County, Virginia, on December 12, 2022.

The former employee filed a lawsuit in state court against the hospital alleging two VHRA claims (failure to accommodate and disparate treatment based on religion) but no Title VII claims and then nonsuited the action. On December 6, 2024, the employee filed a new action in state court re-alleging the VHRA claims and adding Title VII claims for failure to accommodate and disparate treatment. The hospital removed the case to federal court on January 13, 2025. The employee filed an amended complaint and the hospital filed a motion to dismiss the Title VII claims (Counts I and III), the VHRA failure-to-accommodate claim (Count II), and to strike the request for combined punitive damages.

Title VII Claims. The court began its analysis by reviewing the hospital’s argument that the former employee’s Title VII claims are time barred. Title VII requires a claimant bring a lawsuit within 90 days of receiving the EEOC Notice of Right to Sue. The former employee received the notice on September 13, 2022, making December 12, 2022, the deadline, but filed his action on December 6, 2024.

In response, the employee argued that his Title VII claims are timely because they relate back to his original nonsuited action, which he filed on December 12, 2022, and that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(B) authorizes relation back. The court noted that while the Title VII claims arise from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as his VHRA claims (they all stem from Valley Health’s decisions to deny his accommodation request and terminate his employment), Rule 15(c) only authorizes relation back only for pleadings within the same action. Rule 15(c) does not allow a pleading in one case to relate back to a pleading in a separate case.

The former employee also asserted that his Title VII claims are timely under Virginia’s nonsuit tolling statute, Virginia Code § 8.01-229(E)(3). The court disagreed with this argument. Wrote the court, “Because Congress has prescribed a statute of limitations for Title VII claims, however, Virginia’s nonsuit tolling statute does not apply. The Supreme Court has made clear that “[i]f Congress explicitly puts a limit upon the time for enforcing a right which it created, [the] Congressional statute of limitation is definitive.”

The court granted the hospital’s motion to dismiss the Title VII claims, as it concluded they were time-barred.

Failure-to-Accommodate Claim under the VHRA. The court next turned to Count II of the former employee’s complaint, which alleged that the hospital violated the VHRA by refusing to accommodate his religious beliefs. The hospital argues that this claim fails as a matter of law because the VHRA does not require an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for its employees’ religious beliefs.

The court noted that the version of the VHRA from 2021 does not expressly require employers to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs. Nor does it follow Title VII’s approach and define “religion” in a way that incorporates an accommodation requirement. As such, the hospital argued that the omission of religious beliefs from the list of characteristics employers must reasonably accommodate is compelling evidence that the VHRA does not impose any religious accommodation requirement.

However, the court stressed that caselaw has held that although the VHRA does not list religious beliefs as a characteristic employers must accommodate, a separate section of the Act states that “[c]onduct that violates any . . . federal statute or regulation governing discrimination on the basis of . . . religion . . . is an unlawful discriminatory practice under this chapter.” The court indicated courts have found that that conduct which violates Title VII’s prohibitions on religious discrimination also constitutes an “unlawful discriminatory practice” under the VHRA.

The hospital further argued that “that the language in § 2.2-3902 does not, in fact, mean that violations of Title VII necessarily constitute violations of the VHRA. It maintains that the language merely clarifies that OCR has the authority to investigate violations of federal antidiscrimination laws during the administrative review process.” The court disagreed with this argument, noting, “Valley Health’s argument is difficult to square with the plain language of the statute.” Based on the language in § 2.2-3902, the court concluded that a violation of Title VII’s religious accommodation requirement also constituted an actionable violation of the VHRA at the time of the events in this case. The court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss these claims.

Motion to Strike Combined Request for Punitive Damages. Finally, the court denied the hospital’s motion to strike the employee’s request for $350,000 in punitive damages under each statute (or $700,000 combined) after finding that the dismissal of Title VII claims rendered the issue moot.

The case is No. 5:25-cv-00002.

Judge: Yoon, J.

Attorneys: Edward Scott Lloyd (Lloyd Law Group, PLLC) for Douglas Bradford McDowell. Jonathan Martin Sumrell (Hancock, Daniel & Johnson, PC) for Valley Health System.

Companies: Valley Health System

Cases: CaseDecisions Covid19 EmploymentNews VirginiaNews