Earlier this month, the Sixth Circuit reversed an in-home medical care employer’s judgment dismissing a job applicant’s Title VII complaint that she was rejected for employment on account of her religious belief to refuse the COV ID vaccination. Lucky v. Landmark Med. of Mich., P.C., No. 23-2030 (6th Cir. June 12, 2024). The Court found that she had sufficiently pled “her refusal to receive the vaccine was an ‘aspect’ of her religious observance or belief.” “It is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants’ interpretations of those creeds.” Courts are not at the pleading stage to evaluate ”the plausibility of a religious claim.” Her complaint’s “allegations would support an inference of religious conduct for a person of any faith.”
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff job
applicant had alleged in her Complaint that she had been recruited for a
management position with the medical employer and discussions had begun about
her starting salary. However, when she
admitted that she had not been vaccinated against COVID on account of her
religious beliefs (after having prayed on it and God told her not to get
vaccinated), it was explained that 10 other candidates had already been
rejected for refusing the vaccination and the employer would not accommodate
her religious objection. When she filed suit for violation of Title
VII, the court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that she had failed to
state a claim because her non-denominational beliefs did not have a specific
tenet prohibiting vaccination. The Sixth Circuit reversed and found that she
sufficiently pled a religious belief because she
pled facts supporting an inference
that her refusal to be vaccinated for Covid was an “aspect” of her “religious
observance” or “practice” or “belief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). . . . [She] pled that she is “a non-denominational
Christian” who believes she “should not have any vaccination enter her body
such that her body would be defiled, because her body is a temple.” . . . She also pled that she “seeks to make all
decisions, especially those regarding vaccination and other medical decisions,
through prayer.” . . . . She pled
further that—as to the Covid vaccine in particular—“God spoke to [her] in her
prayers and directed her that it would be wrong to receive the COVID-19
vaccine.” . . . And she pled that, as a
result of her beliefs, she refused to receive the vaccine. . . .
Those are allegations of particular
facts—she prayed, she received an answer, she acted accordingly—rather than
what the district court called “naked assertions devoid of further factual
enhancement.” Moreover, she alleged that she has a religious objection to
vaccines of any kind. . . . . No further
“enhancement” was necessary: [Her] allegations were almost self-evidently
enough to establish, at the pleadings stage, that her refusal to receive the
vaccine was an “aspect” of her religious observance or belief.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert
you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does
not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to
different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice.
Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have
any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain
an employment attorney.
