According to a pair of sister cases from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, yes‼️

The Seventh Circuit recently revived two separate, but related lawsuits filed by Christian healthcare workers against Aspirus, a Wisconsin-based health system. These workers were terminated after their requests for religious exemptions from a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy were denied. In dismissing the lawsuits, the lower courts reasoned that the exemption requests were based on secular arguments, such as concerns about vaccine safety, rather than purely religious beliefs. However, the Seventh Circuit overturned these rulings, stating that a request could still be considered religious even if it includes secular concerns, and that this distinction should not be the basis for dismissal at the motion to dismiss stage.

Background

 The cases, Passarella v. Aspirus and Bube v. Aspirus, involve four plaintiffs who worked in healthcare roles at Aspirus hospitals in Wisconsin. The plaintiffs—Megan Passarella, Sandra Dottenwhy, Christine Bube, and Connie Hedrington—sought religious exemptions from the health system’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate in November 2021. Their exemption requests included references to their Christian beliefs, mentioning God, the Bible, and prayer. However, these requests also included concerns about vaccine safety, health, and bodily autonomy. Aspirus denied these exemption requests, deeming the objections to be secular rather than religious, and subsequently terminated the plaintiffs for non-compliance with the vaccination policy.

Lower Court Decisions

 Aspirus filed motions to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act were not valid because the exemption requests did not clearly articulate a religious objection to the vaccine. The District Court agreed, ruling that the exemption requests were based on personal autonomy and safety concerns, which were deemed secular rather than religious. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ cases at the motion to dismiss stage, which, for the non-lawyers in the room is VERY early.

Seventh Circuit’s Ruling

 In overturning the dismissals, the Seventh Circuit held that under Title VII, at the pleading stage, an employee’s request for religious accommodation is valid if it is “plausibly based at least in part on some aspect of their religious belief or practice.” The court emphasized that the inclusion of secular considerations in an accommodation request does not negate its religious nature. The court reasoned that dismissing such requests based on the presence of secular arguments would improperly force courts to distinguish between what is “primarily” religious and what is “minimally” or “tangentially” related to religion, a task the Supreme Court has cautioned against.

The Seventh Circuit concluded that as long as a religious accommodation request can be interpreted as being partially based on religious beliefs, it is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. However, the court clarified that requests based solely on safety considerations without any clear connection to religion, or those with “bizarre” reasons unrelated to religion, would not be protected under Title VII.

What this Means for Employers

 The Seventh Circuit’s decision indicates that, at least within its jurisdiction (Illinois 🌾, Indiana 🏀, and Wisconsin 🧀), it may be more challenging for employers to obtain early dismissals in litigation if an exemption request includes religious references, even if those requests also involve secular concerns.

Of course, this does not mean that the plaintiffs in the above cases will win, hardly. It does mean that their cases will go forward, at least to the summary judgment stage, and that’s the larger point for employers. Employers may find themselves litigating cases that were otherwise previously subject to early dismissal.

#law #hr #employmentlaw