A woman who was fired under her former employer’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccine mandate has successfully moved for leave to amend her complaint.
U.S. District Judge Gershwin A. Drain said the woman’s first amended complaint sufficiently alleged religious beliefs that are in conflict with her former employer’s COVID-19 vaccine policy.
“It further alleges that Plaintiff informed Defendant of the conflict between her religious beliefs and Defendant’s vaccine mandate by submitting a religious accommodation request and sitting for an interview before Defendant ultimately denied her request and terminated her for refusing to comply with the vaccine mandate,” the judge pointed out. “As such, the proposed First Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges a plausible claim for Title VII religious discrimination based on Defendant’s failure to accommodate.”
The decision is Williams v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (MiLW 02-107983, 16 pages).
Vaccine mandate
Shannon Williams began working for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, or BCBSM, as a digital experience operations manager in July 2015. She was an “excellent performer” and received an “exceeds expectations” performance review before her termination in January 2022.
BCBSM imposed a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on all of its employees in 2021 and employees could request an accommodation by Nov. 11, 2021. Employees whose accommodation requests were denied were automatically placed on unpaid leave from Dec. 9, 2021, until Jan. 5, 2022.
Williams claimed BCBSM’s accommodation process was “arbitrary and woefully inconsistent.” Per the opinion, BCBSM “conducted a series of ambush-style interrogations” with the employees who submitted accommodation requests.
On Jan. 5, 2022, BCBSM terminated roughly 250 employees including Williams who had requested a religious accommodation for the vaccine.
Williams filed her original complaint on Aug. 14, 2023. She argued that BCBSM violated her rights under Title VII when it unlawfully discriminated against her religion by failing to grant her accommodation request, and also alleged disparate treatment claims under Title VII and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, or ELCRA.
BCBSM filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on Feb. 29, 2024. Williams failed to allege a sincerely held religious belief so her claims must be dismissed, the company contended.
Williams countered with a motion to amend her complaint on March 21.
Title VII religious discrimination
Williams sought to amend her complaint to clarify her objections by offering more detailed allegations explaining why her religious beliefs prevented her from getting the COVID vaccine.
Her first amended complaint explained that she is a devout Christian and that she relies on biblical passages to guide how she treats her body. Williams also told BCBSM that she believes “it is a sin to alter her body and God-given immune system” and that she hasn’t received any vaccinations since childhood.
Finally, Williams opposes abortion for religious reasons, believing that life begins at conception. She avoids injecting into her body any substances “developed with or tested on fetal cell lines” and receiving the COVID vaccine would make her complicit in murder.
Per the opinion, Williams wanted to amend her complaint to include assertions that BCBSM’s director of employee and labor relations told other employees he doubted the legitimacy of “any” religious accommodation request; that he said in human resources meetings that he believes Christianity allows for COVID vaccines; and stated that religious accommodation interviews would be conducted like “mini depositions” to “pressure” employees to get the COVID vaccine.
She also contended that BCBSM’s president and CEO told other employees in the weeks leading up to the vaccination deadline that he anticipated denying accommodation requests and terminating several employees.
To establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination, an employee must show that she holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with a job requirement, that she told her employer about the conflict, and that she was terminated for failure to comply with the conflicting job requirement. Once that showing had been made, the burden shifts to the employer to show it could not reasonably accommodate the employee without undue hardship.
Here, Drain said none of the factors found in Foman v. Davis weighed in favor of denying amendment of Williams’ complaint.
“She has not delayed in filing her request for an amendment; having done so a few months after filing her original complaint and well before discovery cutoff,” Drain explained. “Defendant had fair notice of Plaintiff’s claims evidenced by its Answer. Further, there is no bad faith, nor repeated failures to correct pleading deficiencies. Nor has Defendant indicated it will suffer undue prejudice if amendment is allowed at this early stage of the litigation.”
Drain said Williams’ amended complaint adequately alleges religious beliefs that clash with the COVID vaccine policy.
Notably, the judge said her objection is embedded in a Christian belief that she must stay as God made her. Also, she relies on Christian scripture to explain her belief that her body is “a temple of the Holy Spirit,” and she told BCBSM that “[a]ltering my body with vaccinations sabotages my spiritual quality of life and eliminates meaning.”
Drain, citing the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s holding in Leeck v. Lehigh Valley Health Network , said Williams’ views about vaccination are part of her larger Christian beliefs and “must be construed in the light most favorable to her as inseparable from and interdependent with her Christian beliefs insofar as she also justifies her way of life, which involves not receiving [the COVID-19 vaccine], by appeal to Biblical scripture.”
Thus, the judge said Williams’ proposed first amended complaint credibly alleges a plausible claim for Title VII religious discrimination based on BCBSM’s failure to accommodate.
ELCRA disparate treatment
Drain looked to caselaw saying that plaintiffs can show disparate treatment discrimination with direct or circumstantial evidence of an employer’s discriminatory motive. And if direct evidence is shown, a plaintiff may prevail without proving all elements of a prima facie case.
BCBSM’s director of employee and labor relations told others in management he had doubts about the validity of “any” religious accommodation request, said in human resources meeting that he believes Christianity allows for vaccinating against COVID-19, and declared that religious accommodation interviews would be conducted like “mini depositions” to “pressure” employees to get the COVID vaccine.
“Indeed, Defendant allegedly instructed employees conducting religious accommodation interviews not to accept ‘all’ religious accommodation requests, even though Defendant did not base denials on a purported undue hardship ( i.e. , substantially increased costs in relation to the conduct of business),” Drain pointed out. “When taken together and accepted as true, these allegations require the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating factor in Defendant’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s accommodation request.”
The judge granted Williams’ motion for leave to amend.
If you would like to comment on this story, contact Cory Linsner at clinsner@milawyersweekly.com .
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0