Dispute Over Religious Accommodation to Hospital's Flu Shot Policy Must Be Resolved at Trial, Federal Court Rules

By
A federal court in North Carolina has ruled that a jury trial will be held in a case brought by the EEOC challenging a hospital's mandatory flu shot policy.  The case was filed in 2016 by the EEOC for a group of terminated employees who failed to request a religious exemption by a certain deadline and did not get the required flu shot.  On August 7, 2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina ruled that it could not dismiss the case at summary judgment without a trial, concluding that a jury would be needed to decide whether workers who did not request a religious exemption to the policy were treated more favorably.


The mandatory flu shot policy required that workers obtain a flu shot by December 1.  However, to accommodate sincere religious beliefs, the policy also allowed workers who had objections to receiving a flu shot on religious grounds to request an exemption under the policy.  The policy required workers to make the request for the exemption by September 1.  The workers at issue in the case did not request the waiver by the stated deadline and were later terminated.  The decision suggests that no grace period was provided to those who failed to request the exemption by the deadline.  However, a grace period to the December 1 flu shot deadline was provided to at least some workers who had not requested the exemption.


The narrow issue in the decision was whether the hospital treated workers differently by not having a grace period for the September 1 exemption deadline, but having one for the December 1 flu shot deadline.  The court made clear that "[t]his is not a case of whether the defendant hospital did or did not believe the claimant's religious beliefs. Instead, it rejected requests for religious accommodations because they did not meet a prescribed deadline."  (Indeed, the decision notes that a significant number of workers who requested exemptions were granted one.)  In ordering a trial, the court concluded as follows: 
The facts here are not one sided. Just as a reasonable jury could find for the hospital defendant, a reasonable jury could find that the defendant was treating individuals differently if they did not request the exemption. In the hearing, the plaintiff noted that there was a "grace period" for those employees who did not meet the December 1 deadline, but no "grace period" for those that fail to meet the exemption's September 1 deadline. Moreover, the jury may find that the staggered dates themselves were unfairly targeting those with religious beliefs.
The case is EEOC v. Mission Hospital, Inc., Case No: 1:16-CV-00118 (W.D.N.C.).


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

OSHA’s New Rule on Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Is Back in Force (For Now)

By
  In the ongoing legal battle over the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s emergency temporary standard on COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing (the “ETS”), a federal appeals court has given OSHA authority—for now—to move forward with enforcement.  The core of the ETS is the requirement that employers with more than 100 employees must implement and enforce a policy that mandates that employees be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by January 4, 2022 or to submit to weekly COVID-19 testing and wear a mask.   However, in light of the numerous legal challenges and the uncertainties caused by the conflicting decisions in federal court, OSHA has stated that it will exercise its “enforcement discretion” to give employers some additional time to comply with deadlines published in the original ETS.  OSHA states that it will not issue any citations for non-compliance with ETS requirements before January 10, 2022, and will not issue citations before February 9, 2022 for failing to enforce
Read more

Governement Agency Scruntizes Confidentiality Agreements

By
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") recently announced that it had opened an enforcement action against a company based on a confidentiality agreement that the SEC claimed interfered with the rights of would-be whistleblowers.  According to the SEC, the confidentiality agreement was presented to employees during workplace investigations, and prohibited the employees from speaking about the investigation with anyone unless the company granted permission.  The SEC claimed that such a provision violated the whistleblower protections of Rule 21F-17 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits actions that impede whistleblowers from reporting possible securities law violations to the SEC.  Our colleague Morgan Curry has offered a solid analysis of the SEC's action here .  As a result, businesses are well advised to take a look at their confidentiality provisions, especially those in employment and severance agreements, to consider whether an update of t
Read more

Supreme Court Decision in Groff v. DeJoy Increases Burden on Employers Under Title VII for Denying Religious Accommodations

By
Employers will now have to show a higher degree of hardship to deny employee requests for religious accommodation. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(b)(1), employers are required to grant employee requests for religious accommodation “unless the employer demonstrates that [the requested] accommodation would result in undue hardship on the conduct of its business.” On July 29, 2023,  the United States Supreme Court unanimously clarified  in  Groff v. DeJoy  that a religious accommodation only results in “undue hardship” when “the burden of granting [the] accommodation would result in  substantial  increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”  The “substantial increased cost” standard is a departure from the lower “more than a  de minimis  cost” standard that has prevailed since 1975. For the last 48 years, employers could deny religious accommodations for causing “undue hardship” if the accommodation would impose “more than
Read more