Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of religious discrimination claims brought by two former employees of the Humane Society of the United States who were terminated for failing to comply with the Humane Society’s company-wide COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The two employees, who both worked remotely, requested religious exemptions from the vaccine mandate. The Humane Society spoke to the employees about their religious beliefs, then denied the exemptions and terminated their employment for failing to get vaccinated.
After their terminations, the former employees filed suit arguing that their terminations violated Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination. One plaintiff alleged that she objected to “injecting a product containing fetal cells or derived from testing involving fetal cells” because such products are “against [her] personal moral beliefs on the sanctity of life.” She also alleged that “accepting this vaccine would compromise the religious beliefs founded in [her] Christian upbringing that fetuses are individuals and did not consent to the use of their bodies in medical testing or production,” and that “taking this vaccine would make [her] complicit in an act that offends [her] spiritual and religious faith.” The other plaintiff contended that receiving the vaccine would “betray[]” her “conscience and faith,” and cited Catholic teachings that aligned with her faith. She emphasized that “[her] heart, conscience and faith in God and Jesus prevent [her] from complying with the mandate.” The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ religious discrimination claims, holding that they “failed to adequately plead that their objections to the COVID-19 vaccine were based on religious beliefs.”
The Fourth Circuit reversed, explaining that both plaintiffs plausibly alleged that their beliefs are an essential part of a religious faith and they both connect those beliefs to their refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. In so holding, the Court reiterated the criteria needed to establish a religious discrimination claim under Title VII. The plaintiff must show her professed belief is sincerely held and religious in nature. Under the “religious in nature” prong, (1) the plaintiff’s beliefs must be an “essential part of a religious faith”; and (2) such beliefs must be “plausibly connected with her refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.” Under the first requirement, the plaintiff must plead that her beliefs are grounded in religious, rather than secular reasons (e.g., medical, personal, etc.). The Fourth Circuit noted that courts give great weight to a person’s assertion that their “belief is an essential part of a religious faith.” Under the second requirement, the plaintiff must plausibly connect her refusal to receive the vaccine to her religious beliefs (as opposed to solely some other secular concern, such as health and safety).
Using this framework, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs’ pleading satisfied each requirement to state a claim for religious discrimination. The Court highlighted that the first plaintiff specifically alleged that she opposed the use of aborted fetal cell lines to produce the COVID-19 vaccine because of her “Christian upbringing,” and the other plaintiff alleged that she would “betray[]” her “conscience and faith” if she complied with the mandate, citing Catholic teachings. The Fourt Circuit concluded that these allegations sufficed to state a religious discrimination claim at the pleading stage because they were enough to show that the plaintiffs’ beliefs are each “an essential part of a religious faith that must be given great weight.” In so concluding, the Fourth Circuit noted that in the later stages of the case, the plaintiffs will be required to produce evidence of the sincerity of their religious beliefs and that the Humane Society may still prevail if it shows that it would have created an undue hardship on the conduct of its business to grant the religious accommodations (vaccine exemptions).
The Fourth Circuit’s opinion serves as a reminder for employers to closely analyze religious accommodation requests and to be cautious about denying such requests based on doubts as to whether the beliefs are sincerely held or religious in nature. If your business is facing religious accommodation issues, you may contact the employment law attorneys at Poyner Spruill for assistance in applying this legal framework.
