BREAKING COVID-19 Case Win; ‘United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit Rules Favorably For Religious Freedom’

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Mayo Clinic in MN violated the religious beliefs of its employees when refusing to accommodate their views pertaining to COVID mandates.

The Minnesota Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled favorable for the employees of Mayo Clinic, Ambulance, a Minnesota non-profit corporation finding “Federal law, under Title VII, provides relief for failures to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. Due to Minnesota’s precedent of (1) construing liberally the MHRA, and (2) providing its citizens with commiserate, or greater, protections than under federal law, the Minnesota Supreme Court” decides that “the MHRA provides protection against failures to accommodate religious beliefs.”

The three court Justice panel rules today “Alleging failure to accommodate their religious beliefs under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.”

The History of The Case Before The Appellate Court

The plaintiffs (employees) “sued The Mayo Clinic, Mayo Clinic Health System–Southeast Minnesota Region, and Mayo Clinic, Ambulance (collectively “Mayo”). They claimed Mayo terminated them for refusing Covid-19 vaccinations or testing. The district court dismissed the claims, ruling that (1) Anita Miller and Sherry Ihde did not exhaust their administrative remedies under Title VII, (2) the other plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead religious beliefs that conflict with Mayo’s Covid-19 policies, and (3) the MHRA fails to provide relief for not accommodating religious beliefs.”

Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court reverses and remands. 28 U.S. Code § 1291 shall grant the Court of Appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, Mayo required all employees to receive the vaccine. Any employee exempted from vaccination was required to test 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 the vaccination requirement, citing their Christian religious beliefs. Mayo denied the accommodations for Shelly Kiel, Kenneth Ringhofer, and Anita Miller, who refused to get vaccinated. MHRA granted vaccination exemptions to Sherry Ihde and Kristin Rubin, but required them to test for Covid-19 weekly, which they refused.

The plaintiffs subsequently refused and alleged the “vaccination requirements conflicted with their Christian beliefs because: (1) according to Scripture, their “body is a temple” they must respect and protect, and (2) their anti- abortion beliefs, rooted in religion, prevent using a product “produced with or tested with fetal cell lines.” Ihde and Rubin invoked the “body is a temple” principle in opposing the testing requirement.”

“The district court dismissed all claims, finding (1) Ihde and Miller did not exhaust their claims because their EEOC charges preceded their terminations, (2) Kiel, Ringhofer, and Rubin did not adequately plead that their religious beliefs conflicted with the vaccination or testing requirements, and (3) the MHRA did not provide a cause of action for failure to accommodate religious beliefs”.

The Eighth Circuit has explicitly stated that termination is a “discrete act,” not a continuing violation. See Hutson v. Wells Dairy, Inc., 578 F.3d 823, 826 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing Morgan, 536 U.S. at 114) (“A termination is a discrete act, not a continuing violation.”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs Ihde and Miller needed to exhaust their administrative remedies based on the alleged unlawful termination before they can bring those claims to Court. Because they did not supplement their EEOC charges to include this additional discrete act, they did not satisfy the exhaustion requirement.

“‘Wedow v. Kansas City, 442 F.3d 661, 673 (8th Cir. 2006). “Guided by the principles set forth in Morgan, we continue to adhere to a narrow reading of this exhaustion exception, but we decline, on the facts before us, to abandon it in toto where the subsequent retaliatory acts were of a like kind to the retaliatory acts alleged in the EEOC charge.“ In Toto is a Latin phrase that means in all, or completely. For example, if a judge accepts a lawyer's argument in toto, it means that the judge accepts the entire argument.”’

“‘Under Title VII, it is “an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s . . . religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1). Religious beliefs do not need to be “acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others.” Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981). “[T]he very concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215–16 (1972).”’

For a Title VII claim based on a failure to accommodate religious beliefs, this circuit has a three-part test:

“To establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination under Title VII, [employees] must show [1] that they have a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; [2] that they informed [employer] of this belief; and [3] that they were disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting requirement of employment.”

.

Kiel, Ringhofer, and Miller were denied vaccination accommodations and were fired for not taking the vaccine. “Each argues that their Christian religious beliefs prevent them from taking the Covid-19 vaccine. Each plaintiff invokes two principles in arguing that their religious beliefs conflict. Again the plaintiffs held unto the religious beliefs invoking (1) their “body is a temple,” and thus they shall not inject it with impure or unknown substances, and (2) their anti-abortion beliefs, rooted in their religion, prevent them from using a product developed with fetal cell lines.”

The district court did not “consider the complaint as a whole,” instead focusing on specific parts of the complaints to rule the anti-vaccine beliefs “personal” or “medical.”

When Kiel, Ringhofer, and Miller’s complaints are read as a whole, they plausibly plead religious beliefs that conflict with Mayo’s vaccine requirement. These claims are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Rubin and Ihde received exemptions from the vaccine mandate. As part of Mayo’s policy, however, they were required to undergo weekly testing for Covid- 19. They did not receive a testing exemption, refused to submit to it, and were fired. They also “contend they plausibly pled a religious belief that conflicted with Covid-19 testing” and subsequently declined the MHRA Covid-19 testing policy on sincerely held religious beliefs.

Federal law, under Title VII, provides relief for failures to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. Due to Minnesota’s precedent of (1) construing liberally the MHRA, and (2) providing its citizens with commiserate, or greater, protections than under federal law, the Minnesota Supreme Court would decide that the MHRA provides protection against failures to accommodate religious beliefs.

The district court erred by finding that the MHRA does not provide a cause of action for failure to accommodate religious beliefs.

*******

The judgment is reversed, and the case remanded proceedings consistent with this opinion.

And so it shall be ruled today from another United States Appellate Court District that President Biden’s Covid-19 OSHA regulations requiring mandatory testing “in lieu” of taking a vaccine is unconstitutional. Furthermore, an employee termination for refusing certain mandatory medical interventions based on religious beliefs also is held unconstitutional under long established legal precedent. Lastly, it is implied based on the Court ruling today a demand by an employer requesting exhaustive explanatory proof of an employee’s long held religious beliefs is not required.

Rejoice

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/mopaqnbkxpa/05242024mayo.pdf