Mass. High Court Revives Fired Employee’s Religious Claim Over Vaccine Refusal

A surgical technician who was fired in 2021 after refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine for religious reasons can pursue her claim against her former employer UMass Memorial Health Care, the Massachusetts Supreme Court (SJC) has ruled.

The state’s highest court reversed a lower court grant of summary judgment in favor UMass Memorial and against Rachelle Jeune.

Jeune’s request for a religious exemption stated in part: “Covid-19 vaccination oppose my personal religious that I hold sacred. It would prevent me from worshipping my God and it also prevent me from practicing my First Amendment Freedom of Religion. Covid-19 vaccines are not the same as ‘traditional vaccines’. The possibility of Covid-19 genetically altering my body, the body God create in his image, is against my belief.”

In Massachusetts, an employer must accommodate an employee’s genuine religious beliefs if it can do so without creating an undue hardship.

UMass Memorial denied Jeune a religious exemption from its COVID-19 vaccination policy on the ground that her beliefs relied on false information. This is how the UMass Memorial religious exemption committee explained its decision: “This requester asserts they cannot receive the COVID-19 vaccines based on their Christian faith because they will ‘genetically alter’ their body. This is patently false — none of the COVID-19 vaccines genetically alter the body or change a person’s DNA. Reliance on demonstrably false information cannot be a basis for a religious accommodation.”

The lower court judge granted summary judgment for UMass Memorial on the grounds that Jeune “failed to articulate a sincerely held religious belief that precluded her from getting vaccinated;” she could not be provided with an accommodation without an undue hardship; and she was not employed by UMass Memorial. Jeune appealed.

The SJC reviewed the grant of summary judgment to determine whether all material facts had been established and UMass Memorial was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The SJC found there are facts still in dispute and thus UMass Memorial was not entitled to summary judgment.

The SJC concluded that Jeune’s stated beliefs that her body is a temple of God and that she prayed to God and received a message not to receive the COVID-19 vaccination were beliefs that a trier of fact could determine were religious in nature and this summary judgment should not have been awarded.

The SJC further concluded that UMass Memorial, which has a policy and record of providing a religious exemption to its vaccination requirement, failed to demonstrate an undue burden as a matter of law.

Finally, the SJC said there is a genuine question whether UMass Memorial, a healthcare system with a number of hospitals, was Jeune’s employer or joint employer, or if she was an employee of one if its Clinton Hospital.

The SJC cited several federal appellate rulings on religion that were not available to the lower court in 2023 in coming to its conclusion on how Jeune’s religious belief should be considered:

“A plaintiff, like the plaintiff here, who believes that she was created in God’s image and that her body is a temple of God and thus needs God’s approval to expose her body to foreign substances, expresses a religious belief. Moreover, a plaintiff who prays to God and receives a “distinctive message from my God” acts in accordance with religious beliefs when she follows those divine instructions. To this, UMass Memorial interposes the objection that “this would create a blanket privilege allowing employees to opt out of any and all employer requirements simply by stating they prayed and received guidance.” Although UMass Memorial is free to argue to a jury that the plaintiff is not telling the truth, “it is not permissible for a judge to determine what is or is not a matter of religious doctrine.”

Also, the high court found that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether accommodating the plaintiff’s religious beliefs would cause an undue hardship to UMass Memorial. The hospital’s policy was to offer accommodations for employees’ religious beliefs, which the court said strongly suggests that it can do so without undue hardship. Also Jeune testified that three other hospitals had accommodated her not receiving the influenza vaccine. Third, and most important, the court said that UMass Memorial simply failed to provide any evidence of undue hardship.

Finally, the court noted that the record is ambiguous as to whether UMass Memorial could be considered a joint employer in the case. Given the gaps in the record, theSJC determined that the lower court was incorrect to conclude that Jeune has no reasonable expectation of proving that UMass Memorial was a joint employer.

Topics Massachusetts