Since the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers have implemented mandatory policies which require their employees to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. Such policies have led to significant litigation across the country, often involving the employer’s duty under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and the Americans with Disabilities Act) to reasonably accommodate employee requests for exemption from COVID vaccination requirements based on religious and/or disability-related reasons. Within this context of a mandatory COVID vaccination policy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently addressed a claim of religious discrimination in the case of Goecke v. 3M Company (8th Cir. 5/14/26). However, the Court rejected the employee’s claim on the grounds that he was not subjected to any adverse action and was not constructively discharged after expressing concerns with the employer’s vaccination policy.
Richard Goecke was employed by 3M Company as an engineer. In September 2021, the Company announced a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for its U.S. employees who lacked “a valid medical or religious exemption.” This mandate was issued to comply with U.S. government vaccination requirements then in effect for federal contractors. The Company informed its employees that the vaccination deadline was December 8, 2021, though that deadline was subsequently extended to January 4, 2022.
In late October 2021, Goecke submitted to the Company a request for religious exemption from the vaccine requirement. However, and before even receiving a response from the Company to that request, Goecke informed his manager that he would be retiring as of December 1st. Goecke cleaned out his workspace on November 16, 2021, and held his exit interview the same day. A week later, he told a coworker that he was “already retired… I never did hear back on my religious exemption, and now frankly don’t care anymore.”
One year later, Goecke sued 3M alleging religious and disability discrimination. The Federal district court granted summary judgment to the Company, and Goecke’s appeal to the Eight Circuit then followed.
Because Goecke did not present any direct proof of anti-religious motive underlying the vaccine mandate (again, the mandate was based on government requirements at the time), he had the evidentiary burden to establish that after requesting his religious exemption he suffered an adverse employment action under circumstances which gave rise to an inference of discrimination. However, the Court noted the undisputed record that Goecke was not terminated after he requested the religious exemption. Rather, he resigned from his job. Goecke attempted to argue that his resignation was not voluntary because he was “forced to choose between his religious beliefs and his job” — i.e., that he was constructively discharged. The Court rejected this argument, citing precedent which held that “an employee who quits without giving his employer a reasonable chance to work out a problem has not been constructively discharged.”
Here, the Court observed that Goecke never gave the Company an opportunity to resolve his concerns about the vaccine mandate. Instead, he vacated his job before the Company had even issued a decision on his exemption request and before the vaccination deadline. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Goecke was not constructively discharged, and therefore he could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII based on his request for religious exemption from the vaccine mandate.
This case thus highlights an important (and common sense) obligation on the part of the employee who requests religious or disability-related exemption from a mandatory vaccination requirement or other similar policies; namely, that the employee must at least give the employer a “reasonable chance” to address and resolve the employee’s concerns with such policies. The failure to do so provides the employer with a meaningful defense to a religious or disability discrimination claim — especially when the employer ultimately does not take any adverse action against the employee after he or she requests an accommodation or exemption.
