Employment — Vaccination – Religious beliefs

Where a plaintiff who was terminated under the defendant employer’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccine mandate has moved for leave to amend her complaint, that motion should be allowed because the complaint as amended sufficiently alleges religious beliefs that conflict with the COVID-19 vaccine policy.

“On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed her original Complaint alleging Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) violated her rights under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq ., when BCBSM unlawfully discriminated against her religion, by failing to grant her request for an accommodation from Defendant’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all employees, and ultimately terminated her employment for not getting the vaccine. Plaintiff also alleges disparate treatment claims under Title VII and Michigan’s Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act, MICH. COMP. LAWS 37.2101 et seq . (ELCRA).

“Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, filed on March 21, 2024.

“Plaintiff seeks to amend her Complaint to clarify that she does not base her objection to the COVID-19 vaccine on merely ‘praying on it,’ as well as to provide more detail concerning statements made by Defendant’s decision makers. Specifically, she seeks to add more detailed allegations explaining why Plaintiff’s religious beliefs prevented her from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

“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. 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. Finally, contrary to Defendant’s argument, amendment is not futile as will be more fully explained below.

“Here, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges religious beliefs that conflict with the COVID-19 vaccine policy.

“Here, Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint plausibly alleges her sincerely held religious beliefs. 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. As such, the proposed First Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges a plausible claim for Title VII religious discrimination based on Defendant’s failure to accommodate.”

Williams v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan; MiLW 02-107983, 16 pages; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Drain, J.

Click here to read the full text of the opinion

Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.