Case updates this week:

This week’s newsletter focuses on a variety of employment cases related to the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccination, and mask policies. These cases represent the tail end of litigation challenging the efforts of private employers to follow public health best practices. While these cases do not directly affect public health authority, we include them because public health authority gains legitimacy when private individuals and entities align with public health goals and practices. And, of course, the reverse is true as well.

May 24, 2024: In Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic, five employees brought suit contending that the Mayo Clinic and some of its affiliate organizations (“Mayo”) failed to accommodate their Christian religious beliefs under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Mayo required its employees to get vaccinated, and required any exempted employee to test weekly. Mayo denied accommodations for Plaintiffs, Shelly Kiel, Kenneth Ringhofer, and Anita Miller. Mayo granted exemptions for Plaintiffs, Sherry Ihde and Kristin Rubin but required them to test weekly for COVID-19, which they refused to do on religious grounds.

Kiel, Miller, and Ringhofer claimed that putting the COVID-19 vaccine into their bodies would require ingestion of tested cells from aborted human babies. Ihde contended that taking the vaccine is “irresponsible and crosses the line violating his conscience.”

The District Court dismissed Plaintiffs claims, holding that they failed to “plausibly plead their Title VII failure to accommodate claims” because they failed to connect their refusal of the vaccine with their religious beliefs. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the Court erred because it “did not consider the complaint as whole.” Rather the District Court focused on specific parts of the complaint to rule the anti-vaccine beliefs as “personal” or “medical” not “religious.”



On June 28, 2024, in Jones v. City of Seattle and on July 5, 2024, in MacDonald v. Oregon Health & Science University, summary judgment was granted for the respective Defendants. In Jones, the City of Seattle fired Plaintiff, Monica Jones for non-compliance with Seattle’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement, which the Seattle Mayor established in August 2021. The policy included a process for employees to seek religious and medical exemptions. But employees who received exemptions would be required to test weekly and to follow distancing requirements.

Plaintiff then sued in November 2022 contending that the City had pre-determined to deny her religious exemption as a pretext to fire her for other reasons, including her manager’s racial bias toward her as an African American.

As to whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a religious exemption, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to offer any facts that would allow a jury or a court to find that she had a sincerely held religious objection because she failed to establish what her exact belief system was and how it prevented her from receiving the vaccine. As to the Plaintiff’s racial discrimination claim, the Court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish the first element of her claim, which required her to show that there were other similarly situated employees receiving more favorable treatment than herself. Therefore, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the City.

Similarly in MacDonald, the Court granted summary judgment to Defendant Oregon Health and Science University. Plaintiff, a registered nurse in the Defendant’s Mother Baby Unit, sought a religious exemption from the Defendant’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. In a previous stage of this case, Defendants had conceded that the Plaintiff successfully established that she qualified for a religious exemption, so that the only relevant issue was whether the Defendant could have accommodated the Plaintiff but failed to do so. The Court found that the Defendant could not accommodate Plaintiff’s religious beliefs because her decision not to get the COVID-19 vaccine would have affected the health and safety of its patients and staff.

July 5, 2024: In Clobes v. 3M Company, Thomas Clobes sued his employer, 3M, contending religious discrimination and hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 3M established a mandate that all salaried employees be vaccinated for COVID-19 by December 8, 2021. Clobes was notified that he would be terminated if he did not become vaccinated, but he objected and stated that he had a religious objection and safety concerns regarding the COVID-19 vaccine.

In determining Clobes eligibility for a religious exemption, 3M asked Clobes what made COVID-19 different from other vaccines he had previously received and what religious beliefs specifically prevented him from taking the COVID 19 vaccine. On December 10, 2021, Clobes received an email from 3M stating that the vaccine requirement had been lifted. Clobes still sued 3M and contended that he had felt “harassed” by 3M’s policy and had continued to fear that he was going to be terminated. The District Court granted 3M’s motion to dismiss because Clobes failed to establish that he suffered an adverse employment action, because he had not been fired. The actions 3M engaged in were not the kind of outrageous conduct required to establish a hostile environment, and they did not discriminate against Clobes because the allegedly harassing communications about 3M’s vaccine policies were sent to everyone in the company and were not directly at Clobes himself. The Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the District Court.

July 11, 2024: The United States District Court of Middle District of Florida granted in part and denied in part Defendant JetBlue Airways Corp.’s motion to dismiss in Serian v. JetBlue Airways Corporation. Elisabeth Serian, Plaintiff, contended that as a flight attendant for Defendant, she originally followed the mandatory mask policy until she began to experience respiratory difficulties. Serian provided evidence that her health-practitioner stated that wearing the face mask was causing her medical issues. Serian alleged that she was “even denied an accommodation of wearing a face shield instead of a mask.” Serian became very vocal about her frustrations on a Facebook page, for which she claimed Defendant “bullied” her. Defendant fired Plaintiff due to social media policy violations. JetBlue rescinded its mask mandate in April 2022.

Plaintiff sued on the grounds that Defendant did not provide a reasonable accommodation as required by the Americans With Disabilities Act, for retaliation for seeking an accommodation and on the grounds under Title VII, and that Defendant had created a hostile work environment also in violation of Title VII.

The Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss because it was not evident which protected activity the Plaintiff was linking to each adverse action. But the Court’s decision to dismiss was without prejudice to give the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint to clarify her claims. The Court denied the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to accommodate the Plaintiff’s medical condition because her allegations, which said that wearing the face mask caused her to vomit and feel ill, was sufficient to state a claim for disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.