Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended in 1972) does more than prohibit employers from religious discrimination; it requires employers to exempt bona fide religious objectors even from generally applicable neutral employment rules unless granting the exemption would cause “undue harm” difficulty”. And, as with the U.S. religious exemption system more generally, the question is whether the employee has a sincere religious objection, not whether that objection is endorsed by a large religious group or makes logical sense. Here’s Friday’s decision from the Eighth Circuit: Linhoff v. Mayo Clinic, AmbulanceWritten by Judge Duane Benton, joined by Judges Ralph Erickson and Jonathan Corbis, the following statutory rules apply:
Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, Mayo is requiring all employees to be vaccinated. Any employees who are exempt from vaccination must be tested weekly. On December 3, 2021, Mayo notified all employees that they must comply with the policy by January 3 or be terminated.
The plaintiffs sought religious accommodations for vaccination requirements, citing their Christian beliefs. Mayo refused to accommodate Shelly Keir, Kenneth Lindhoff and Anita Miller because they refused to be vaccinated. It gave Sherry Ihde and Kristin Rubin exemptions from vaccinations but required them to take weekly Covid-19 tests, which they refused…
Kiel, Linhoff and Miller were denied the vaccine and fired for not taking it. Everyone thinks their Christian beliefs prevent them from getting the Covid-19 vaccine. Each plaintiff cited two principles to argue that their religious beliefs conflict with vaccine regulations: (1) their “body is a temple” and therefore they may not inject impure or unknown substances, and (2) their Anti-abortion beliefs rooted in their religion prevent them from using products developed from fetal cell lines…
At this early stage, when the complaint is read as a whole and the party that takes no action has the benefit of reasonable inferences, Kiel, Miller and Linhoff fully identify the religions they believe conflict with taking the Covid-19 vaccine View. All three plaintiffs linked their refusal to vaccinate to their religious beliefs:
- Kiel’s complaint states that her “religious beliefs prevent her from injecting Covid-19 vaccines into her body… because these vaccines are produced or tested with cells from aborted human babies. Accepting the vaccine would make her a candidate for an abortion that resulted in the baby’s death.” of participants.
- Miller’s complaint states that her “religious exemption is based on an objection to vaccines produced or tested using cells from aborted babies. Plaintiff Miller believes in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. She lives her life in accordance with her sincerely held religious beliefs.” … She is a Christian and in her conscience she has decided that she cannot take the Covid-19 vaccine or she would be complicit in killing the cells of her unborn baby that the vaccine is used for.
- Ringhofer’s complaint states that “his body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and he is vehemently opposed to abortion.” Plaintiff Ringhofer believes the vaccine directive violates his religious beliefs and conscience by requiring him to receive the Covid-19 vaccine because the vaccines are produced or tested with fetal cells The Linhofer… [believes] “Using fetal cells during their development, knowing this, is against my religious beliefs.”
District Court[, which rejected plaintiffs’ claims,] Rather than “looking at the complaint as a whole,” it focuses on specific parts of the complaint to treat anti-vaccination beliefs as “personal” or “medical.” As the EEOC guidance states, “Overlap between religious and political views does not exclude them from the scope of Title VII religious protections so long as the views are part of a comprehensive religious belief system.”
The district court erred in emphasizing that many Christians choose to be vaccinated. This does not defeat the plaintiff’s belief…”[T]Guarantee of free exercise clause[ ] “Not limited to beliefs common to all members of a religious denomination.”…
Rubin and Ed received exemptions from the vaccine authorization. However, as part of Mayo’s policy, they must be tested for Covid-19 every week. They were not granted a test exemption, refused to comply, and were fired. They claim their religious beliefs conflict with Covid-19 testing:
- Rubin’s complaint states: “The Holy Spirit now lives within her and she believes that her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and that she has a responsibility to treat her with respect. She does not believe in putting unnecessary vaccines or medications into her body, or going to the hospital because of this , it goes against her conscience to get vaccinated or get tested weekly or sign a note providing her medical information.
- Ead’s complaint states: “My faith is my Creator and He is my Healer (Exodus 15:26). Faith is a combination of belief and action (James 2:17). Put my Shifting faith from the Creator to medicine is tantamount to idolatry – respecting medicine more than Elohim (Colossians 3:5), I believe it is legitimate to use modern medicine to save lives; however, there is a line between using it and abusing it There is a fine line… excessive surgeries, vanity surgeries and redundant invasive testing on healthy, asymptomatic people is irresponsible and crosses the line of my conscience before God…”
Rubin and Ed plausibly argued that their religious beliefs conflicted with the test requirements. As discussed, beliefs do not have to be consistent among all members of a religion or “acceptable, logical, consistent, or understandable to others.” They have satisfied themselves by linking their objections to testing to specific religious principles (Rubin believed “her body was a temple” and Ed believed testing in this context might “amount to engaging in idolatry”) current burden.
All of the plaintiffs have fully demonstrated the conflict between their Christian beliefs and Mayo Clinic’s Covid-19 policies.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. These proceedings may include a jury trial to determine whether the plaintiff’s objections are indeed factual, bona fide, and religious in nature, and may include legal judgments or factual findings to determine whether allowing the plaintiff to waive vaccination and testing requirements would impose an imposition on the employer. Causing “undue hardship” (defined by the court as “a substantial increase in the costs associated with conducting a particular business”).
