Title VII Religious Bias In Vaccine Mandate

Religious accommodation request gone wrong; lessons for employers

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has unanimously reversed the dismissal of a Title VII religious bias lawsuit in a vaccine mandate case. The suit was brought by a former employee of Inova Health Care Services. This decision, taken on January 7, 2025, will have a significant impact on employment discrimination law.

Case Overview

Kristen M. Barnett, a registered nurse and Christian, alleged that her former employer, Inova Health Care Services, unlawfully discharged her for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine due to her religious beliefs. Barnett claimed that receiving the vaccine would violate her faith and understanding that her body is a “temple of God.” Despite requesting a religious exemption from Inova’s vaccine mandate, her request was denied, and she was terminated after non-compliance.

Barnett filed suit asserting three claims:
 

• Failure to provide reasonable accommodation under Title VII;
• Disparate treatment under Title VII; and
• Disparate treatment under the Virginia Human Rights Act (“VHRA”).

The district court dismissed all three claims, but the Fourth Circuit reversed based on the following:
 

1. Sincerity of Religious Beliefs: The Fourth Circuit emphasized that courts should avoid delving into the validity or conventionality of religious beliefs. It ruled that Barnett sufficiently alleged her religious beliefs were sincerely held, meeting the standard to survive a motion to dismiss.
2. Nature of Religious Beliefs: The court found that Barnett’s assertions, including that the vaccine would violate her faith and that her religious beliefs guided all major life decisions, were sufficiently “religious in nature” to warrant protection under Title VII.
3. Disparate Treatment Allegations: Barnett alleged that Inova discriminated against employees with less conventional religious beliefs, granting exemptions to others with “more prominent” religions. The Fourth Circuit ruled that these allegations, if true, support claims of disparate treatment under Title VII and the VHRA.
4. Procedural Flexibility in Pleading: The Fourth Circuit reiterated that plaintiffs can pursue multiple or alternative claims based on the same set of facts, and therefore, dismissal of Barnett’s disparate treatment claims as duplicative was erroneous.

Implications for Employers

This decision underscores the importance of handling religious accommodation requests with care and consistency. Employers should:
 

• Implement clear, neutral processes for evaluating religious exemption requests.
• Avoid making subjective judgments about the validity of employees’ religious beliefs.
• Train managers and decision-makers on the legal requirements of Title VII and state analogs like the VHRA.

Employers enforcing vaccine mandates or other broad workplace policies should assess the potential for religious or medical exemptions and ensure compliance with federal and state discrimination laws.

This article first appeared here.

Caroline Margolis is an Associate at Poyner Spruill LLP.