Opinion
3:23-cv-00787-JR
09-27-2023
MELINDA RUSCITTI, an individual, Plaintiff, v. LEGACY HEALTH, a corporation, Defendants.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
Jolie A. Russo United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, Melinda Ruscitti, brings this action alleging employment discrimination. Before the Court is defendant Legacy Health's motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated below, the motion should be granted.
Defendant asks the Court to consider documents outside the complaint purportedly incorporated by reference, i.e., plaintiff's exemption request in which she states “this Covid19 vaccine is contrary to my personal religious beliefs that are held between myself and my God.” See Declaration of Dominik Mackinnon at Ex. 1 (ECF 5-1 at p. 2). Regardless of whether the statement is considered on this motion to dismiss, the analysis and conclusion are the same.
Plaintiff alleges defendant employed her for six years as a registered nurse and that she worked directly with patients, including those diagnosed with COVID-19. Complaint (ECF 1) at ¶ 5. Plaintiff asserts she received consistently positive feedback from her supervisor, coworkers, and patients. Id.
Plaintiff alleges she is “a devoutly religious individual who adheres to principles of a Christian faith and is dedicated to following the tenets of her faith to the best of her ability.” Id. at ¶ 6. Plaintiff asserts that until the COVID-19 pandemic, her faith had not caused a conflict with her work requirements. Id. at ¶ 7.
Plaintiff alleges that despite the risks posed by COVID-19 to her own health as a nurse, she continued to provide exceptional work, adjusting her life to best ensure the safety of her patients and coworkers. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. Plaintiff alleges:
For eighteen months, Plaintiff scrupulously followed clinic rules and regulations to protect against infection, which included the wearing of personal protective equipment (herein, “PPE”), hand-washing and other hygiene protocols, social distancing when possible, and quarantining when necessary.Id. at ¶ 10.
Plaintiff avers, in Summer 2021, defendant announced a COVID-19 vaccine mandate but noted that those individuals with religious beliefs in conflict with the vaccine and/or to taking the vaccine could apply for religious exceptions. Id. at ¶ 12. Plaintiff alleges:
As a devout Christian, Plaintiff had serious objections to taking the vaccine because it would constitute violating her bodily integrity and tainting the purity of her body. On or about August 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed the formal paperwork for a religious exception and anticipated it would be granted.Id.
However, plaintiff asserts defendant denied her religious exemption request on September 27, 2021, and terminated her employment on September 30, 2021. Id. at ¶ 13. Plaintiff alleges she:
attempted to negotiate with the Defendant to find a workable solution to her religious exemption from the vaccine, but Defendant's only response was to state that unvaccinated employees could not be around patients, coworkers, or enter Legacy Health facilities.Id. at ¶ 14. Plaintiff further asserts:
Defendant has yet to explain why, in its view, after a year of being able to work without incident during the pandemic, Plaintiff's unvaccinated status suddenly created an unacceptable health and safety risk necessitating her being placed on unpaid
administrative leave. During this time, Defendant's policy required employees to show up to work even if they had been exposed to COVID-19, as long as their symptoms could be treated with over-the-counter remedies.Id. at ¶ 16.
Plaintiff alleges her termination was not to protect against an unacceptable health and safety risk but was the result of discriminatory actions by defendant based on her sincerely held religious beliefs and retaliation for expressing those beliefs. Id. at ¶ 17. Plaintiff contends defendant failed to pursue any reasonable accommodations. Id. As a result, plaintiff alleges she suffered economic loss and emotional distress. Id. at 18.
Plaintiff alleges claims for unlawful employment discrimination based on religion pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.030 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Defendant moves to dismiss both claims.
DISCUSSION
Defendant asserts plaintiff fails to allege sufficient factual content to establish a plausible claim for religious discrimination under either federal or state law.
To properly plead a religious discrimination claim, plaintiff must allege: (1) she had a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicts with an employment duty; (2) she informed her employer of the belief and conflict; and (3) the employer discharged, threatened, or otherwise subjected her to an adverse employment action because of her inability to fulfill the job requirement. Heller v. EBB Auto. Co., 8 F.3d 1433, 1438 (9th Cir.1993). Defendant contends plaintiff fails to allege she had a sincerely held religious belief that conflicted with defendant's vaccination requirement.
Oregon's anti-discrimination statutes are analyzed under the same framework as claims bought under Title VII. El v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2020 WL 2616397, at *3 (D. Or. May 22, 2020).
Title VII defines “religion” to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.” Tiano v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 1 39 F.3d 679, 681 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)). Nevertheless, “Title VII does not protect secular preferences.” Id. at 682; see also Mason v. Gen. Brown Cent. Sch. Dist., 851 F.2d 47, 51 (2d Cir. 1988) (“[a]n individual's assertion that the belief [is religious does not] automatically mean that the belief is religious . . . a threshold inquiry into the religious aspect of particular beliefs and practices cannot be avoided if we are to determine what is in fact based on religious belief, and what is based on secular or scientific principles”) (collecting cases).
With respect to COVID vaccination mandates, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has provided guidance to employers navigating claimed religious exemptions, explaining that, “although Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, an employee's request for an exemption from a COVID-19 vaccination mandate can be denied on the ground that the employee's belief is not truly religious in nature[.]'” Doe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 19 F.4th 1173, 1180 (9th Cir. 2021). The EEOC's guidance notes objections to the COVID-19 vaccine that “are purely based on social, political, or economic views or personal preferences, or any other nonreligious concerns (including about the possible effects of the vaccine)” are not protected by Title VII. What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws, EEOC (Oct. 25, 2021), available at https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws#L. “However, overlap between a religious and political view does not place it outside the scope of Title VII's religious protections, as long as the view is part of a comprehensive religious belief system and is not simply an isolated teaching.” Id.
Plaintiff alleges she had “serious objections to taking the vaccine because it would constitute violating her bodily integrity and tainting the purity of her body.” Complaint (ECF 1) at ¶ 12. Such allegation fails to establish religious opposition to the vaccination policy. See Passarella v. Aspirus, Inc., 2023 WL 2455681, *5-6 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 10, 2023) (dismissing Title VII claims where the plaintiffs sought religious exemptions on the basis “that [their bodies were each] a temple of the Holy Spirit,” concluding these are “personal judgments about vaccine safety and not . . . religious reasons . . . the use of religious vocabulary does not elevate a personal medical judgment to a matter of protected religion”); Brox v. Hole, 590 F.Supp.3d 359, 366 (D.Mass. 2022) (“the record suggests that plaintiffs' opposition to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine” - i.e., that God has instilled them with adequate immune systems and a corresponding preference for natural remedies - “is based primarily on philosophical, medical, or scientific beliefs, or personal fears or anxieties rather than bona fide religious practices”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); Mason v. General Brown Cent. Sch. Dist., 851 F.2d 47, 51-52 (2d Cir. 1988) (rejecting parents' religious objection to the school's vaccination policy on the grounds that their cited belief in the body's ability to self-heal were scientific and/or secular); see also Geerlings v. Tredyffrin/Easttown Sch. Dist., 2021 WL 4399672, *7-8 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2021) (“[r]eligious adherents often profess that faith inspires much of their secular lives, but those activities are still secular . . . it takes more than a generalized aversion to harming the body to nudge a practice over the line from medical to religious”).
Courts are not required to “take plaintiffs' conclusory assertions of violations of their religious beliefs at face value.” Bolden-Hardge v. Office of the Cal. State Controller, 63 F.4th 1215, 1223 (9th Cir. 2023).; see also Rogers v. Neb. Urb. Indian Health Coal., Inc., 2023 WL 2990720, *5 (D. Neb. Apr. 18, 2023) (granting the defendant's 12(b)(6) motion as to a Title VII claim where the plaintiff “does not articulate or describe any particular beliefs that she maintains [or] provide even a perfunctory explanation as to how her beliefs conflict with receiving a COVID-19 vaccine”). Accordingly, plaintiff's religious discrimination claims are dismissed. However, it is not clear whether the pleading deficiency can be cured by amendment. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice and plaintiff is allowed to seek leave to amend.
CONCLUSION
Defendant Legacy Health's motion to dismiss (ECF 4) should be granted without prejudice and plaintiff should be allowed to seek leave to amend.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order. The parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the court. Thereafter, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any factual determination of the Magistrate Judge will be considered as a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the factual issues and will constitute a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to this recommendation.