Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note involving COVID-19 vaccination accommodation, (Feb 7, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent COVID-19 vaccination accommodation-related decisions of interest to the labor and employment law community.

9th Cir.: Employees seeking religious exemption to COVID-19 vaccination mandate prevail on appeal. Former employees of the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) sued CCSF alleging that they were “denied religious exemptions to [its] COVID-19 vaccination requirement” in violation of Title VII and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The employees alleged that CCSF failed to accommodate their religious beliefs and moved for a preliminary injunction requiring CCSF to accommodate their religious beliefs by allowing remote work or in-person work with protective measures. The district court denied the motion, and upon remand by the Ninth Circuit “with instructions to reevaluate certain arguments,” again found that the employees failed to demonstrate “irreparable harm” or that the public interest favored their position. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court failed to “analyze [the employees’] likelihood of success on the merits despite th[e] Court’s instruction to do so,” “abused its discretion in concluding that [the employees] failed to show irreparable harm,” and “did not properly consider the balance of the equities and the public interest.” The court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to grant the preliminary injunctive relief sought by the employees (Keene v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 24-1574 (9th Cir. Jan. 30, 2025, unpublished)).

S.D. Ind.: Nurse failed to timely submit COVID-19 vaccination accommodation request. A registered nurse who worked for a healthcare provider subject to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) interim final rule—which “implement[ed] COVID-19 vaccination requirements for the staff of Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers”—failed to submit proof of vaccination or a request for religious accommodation by the healthcare provider’s deadline, despite being reminded of it multiple times. After missing the deadline, her untimely exemption request was denied, and her employment was terminated. The nurse sued her employer under Title VII, alleging religious discrimination. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that it acted in compliance with federal mandates and that the termination was solely due to policy non-compliance. The court held that it was reasonable for the healthcare provider to “enforce requirements imposed by the CMS Rule,” that the nurse was terminated for failing to comply with the vaccination requirement, and that she failed to provide evidence suggesting that her employer’s actions were motivated by religious discrimination (Brunsman v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc. d/b/a Franciscan Health Indianapolis, No. 1:23-cv-01012-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2025)).

S.D. Cal.: Employee seeking COVID-19 vaccination exemption failed to sufficiently communicate religious beliefs. An office assistant sought an exemption from her employer’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate based on her Christian beliefs opposing the use of fetal tissue in vaccines. She had previously received religious exemptions for other vaccines. The employee’s exemption request was denied, and she was eventually terminated for non-compliance with the vaccine policy. She sued her employer, alleging religious discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as well as wrongful termination. The employer moved to dismiss. The court found that while the employee articulated bona fide religious beliefs opposing the vaccine, she failed to sufficiently communicate these beliefs to her employer in a manner that demonstrated a conflict with her job duties. The court also noted that her retaliation claims lacked a causal link between “her request for accommodation and subsequent adverse employment action.” Consequently, the court granted the motion to dismiss, allowing the employee an opportunity to amend her complaint (Ashcroft v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, No. 24-cv-0035-MMA-MMP (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2025)).

W.D. Wis.: Disabled employee’s COVID-19 accommodation requests were denied. A former revenue agent with COPD claimed that the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR) created intolerable working conditions by enforcing a return-to-work policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The agent asserted that DOR officials “retaliated against him, and refused to accommodate his reasonable requests in light of his disability and religious beliefs.” His “religious beliefs allegedly conflicted with masking,” and he requested to work from home. While his accommodation requests were pending, he met with his supervisor who, during the meeting, “harassed and verbally abused [him] by telling him that he was unfit for work.” The supervisor also “threatened to call the police to have [the employee] removed.” The employee’s accommodation requests were subsequently denied, and he sued the DOR and agency officials alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the ADA. The DOR and officials moved to dismiss, arguing that the individual officials were not liable under the ADA or Title VII, sovereign immunity barred monetary damages claims, and the employee’s religious and disability discrimination allegations were insufficient. The court agreed in part, dismissing claims against individual defendants except for injunctive relief purposes and finding the allegations insufficient for failure-to-accommodate claims. However, the court allowed the harassment, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation claims against DOR to proceed, and allowed the employee to file an amended complaint (McKay v. Wis. Dept. of Revenue, No. 3:23-cv-00504-wmc (W.D. Wis. Jan. 22, 2025)).

Cases: Covid19 Discharge ReligiousDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Retaliation Discrimination Procedure