Legal Updates
First Circuit Upholds Employers' Denials Of Vaccination Exemptions
Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued two rulings affirming employers’ decisions not to grant employees’ requests for religious-based exemptions to mandatory COVID vaccination policies.
In these two recent cases, Rodrique v. Hearst Communications, Inc. and Melino v. Boston Medical Center, the First Circuit gave weight to the fact that the employers were relying on prevailing workplace health and safety guidance at the time they denied the exemption requests, even though that guidance was later modified in light of new evidence as to the effectiveness of the COVID vaccines.
Background
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) prohibits employment discrimination based on various characteristics, including race, religion, sex, and national origin. Under Title VII, employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs and practices, unless an employee’s requested accommodation would pose an undue hardship for the employer.
Title VII does not specifically define a “reasonable accommodation” or “undue hardship.” In a 2023 decision, however, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employer that denies an employee’s religious accommodation request must demonstrate that granting the request would create a substantial burden for the employer in the overall context of its business. Previously, courts had held that an employer could deny such a request merely by showing that the proposed religious accommodation would create a “more than de minimis” burden for the employer.
The Rodrique Decision
In Rodrique, Hearst Communications, a media company, instituted a policy requiring that all employees and guests entering its offices be vaccinated against COVID. In adopting its policy, Hearst relied on public health guidance communicated by various federal and state authorities, including the federal Centers for Disease Control.
The plaintiff, George Rodrique, requested an exemption from his employer’s mandatory vaccination policy. Rodrique explained that although he did not subscribe to any organized religion, he had religious beliefs that precluded him from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. In particular, Rodrique asserted that the vaccine had been developed using fetal cell lines, and that accepting a vaccine would conflict with his belief that the human body is a divinely created “temple.”
Hearst denied Rodrique’s exemption request, on the basis that allowing an unvaccinated employee in the company’s offices would create a significant risk of substantial harm to the health and safety of its employees.
After his employment was terminated due to his refusal to be vaccinated, Rodrique filed suit under Title VII, arguing that Hearst would not have sustained any undue hardship had it granted him the requested exemption. In support of his claim, Rodrique cited recent medical studies finding that COVID vaccines help to mitigate symptoms of the virus but do not reduce the likelihood of its transmission.
A federal district court judge awarded summary judgment to Hearst, finding that Rodrique had not shown that his objections to the COVID vaccine were religiously based. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment, but on different grounds. The First Circuit concluded that, in rejecting Rodrique’s request for a religious accommodation, Hearst had acted reasonably based on prevailing medical guidance at the time. The fact that that guidance was later revised based on new evidence as to the efficacy of the vaccines did not change that fact.
The Melino Decision
In the other recent First Circuit decision, the plaintiff, Alexandra Melino, worked as a registered nurse at Boston Medical Center (“BMC”). Melino sought, and was denied, a religious-based exemption from her employer’s policy requiring all employees to be vaccinated against COVID.
Like the plaintiff in the Rodrigue case, Melino argued that BMC could not meet its burden of showing an undue hardship, citing recent studies finding the COVID vaccines to be ineffective in preventing transmission of the virus. In addition, Melino cited a publicly available letter from a Chief Scientist of the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to one of the vaccine manufacturers, Pfizer, Inc., which stated that the Pfizer vaccine “may be effective.” This “may be effective” language, according to Melino, “d[id] not convey a great deal of certainty,” thereby raising issues as to the efficacy of the vaccines and, by implication, the necessity of BMC’s policy.
The federal district court judge hearing the case granted BMC’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Melino’s job could not be performed remotely, and that Melino “could not work in-person while she remained unvaccinated without risking the health and safety of her patients.”
On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that BMC had legitimately relied upon prevailing medical guidance at the time of Melino’s exemption request. The First Circuit also noted that the FDA letter cited by Melino, despite its seemingly tentative language, actually reported that the COVID vaccine had a disease prevention rate of more than 95%.
Takeaways For Employers
Although these two First Circuit decisions dealt with COVID policies specifically, the general principle they rest on seems likely to carry broader significance. Employers considering religiously motivated accommodation requests from employees in other health and safety contexts should be able to rely on the best scientific and medical guidance available at the time, even if that guidance later changes based on new evidence.
At the same time, the Rodrique decision is an important reminder that an employee who requests an accommodation based on religious beliefs does not need to belong to a church or other religious organization, or subscribe to any recognized religion. As long as an employee’s accommodation request is based on sincerely held religious beliefs, the employer is obligated to give it careful consideration.
* * *
If you have questions about your organization’s workplace policies in the wake of the Rodrique and Melino decisions, please feel free to contact one of our experienced employment attorneys.
*Peter Wells, formerly a Law Clerk with Schwartz Hannum PC, assisted in preparing this article.
