Opinion
3:23-cv-00787-JR
05-09-2024
MELINDA RUSCITTI, an individual, Plaintiff, v. LEGACY HEALTH, a corporation, Defendant.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
Jolie A. Russo United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, Melinda Ruscitti, brings this action alleging employment discrimination under state and federal law. On November 16, 2023, the Court dismissed plaintiff's complaint finding the allegations failed to establish religious opposition to the vaccination policy at issue. (ECF 9, 13). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 1, 2023, and defendant Legacy Health again moves to dismiss. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
ALLEGATIONS
In her initial complaint, plaintiff alleged 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. Specifically, plaintiff asserted 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.” Complaint (ECF 1)at ¶ 6. Plaintiff asserted that 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. Further plaintiff alleged:
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.
Plaintiff alleged defendant denied her religious exemption request on September 27, 2021, and terminated her employment on September 30, 2021. The Court found plaintiff's allegations failed to establish religious opposition to the vaccination policy as opposed to philosophical, medical, or scientific beliefs, or personal fears or anxieties against the vaccine policy. The Court granted plaintiff leave to amend this deficiency.
Plaintiff's amended complaint states as follows:
In the summer of 2021, Defendant announced it would be implementing and enforcing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate in the workplace. Plaintiff was informed that those individuals with religious beliefs in conflict with the vaccine and/or to the taking of the vaccine could apply for religious exceptions. 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. She made clear to Defendant that her objection to the vaccine was directly related to her personal religious beliefs held between her and God and that, with God's guidance, she determined that she could not take the COVID-19 vaccine and remain devoted to her faith. On or about August 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed the formal paperwork for a religious exception and anticipated it would be granted.
In her request for religious exemption, plaintiff asserted she “sincerely affirm[s] to you that this COVID 19 vaccine is contrary to my personal religious beliefs that are held between myself and my God .. [m]y duty is to follow my Lord's guidance above all else and that guidance has genuinely led me to my decision.” Letter Attached to Exemption Request. (ECF 18-1) at p. 2.
First Amended Complaint (ECF 14) at ¶ 12.
DISCUSSION
Defendant again asserts plaintiff fails to allege sufficient factual content to establish a plausible claim for religious discrimination under either federal or state law and asks the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice given the failure to cure this deficiency.
Plaintiff's amended complaint again fails to allege a protected religious belief beyond a mere conclusion that she has some “personal religious beliefs” that conflict with the vaccine mandate. See Bolden-Hardge v. Off, of California State Controller, 63 F.4th 1215, 1223 (9th Cir. 2023) (Courts need not take plaintiffs' conclusory assertions of violations of their religious beliefs at face value).
As noted with respect to the initial complaint: 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). Title VII defines “religion” to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.” Tiano v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 139 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).
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).
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.
To the extent plaintiff alleges any particular belief that conflicts with taking the vaccination, it is that she has “serious objections to taking the vaccine because it would constitute violating her bodily integrity and tainting the purity of her body.” First Amended Complaint (ECF 14) at ¶ 12. Just as in the initial complaint, this 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”).
The remainder of plaintiff's allegations are mere conclusions that the vaccine conflicts with some unidentified personal religious belief. Judges within this district and throughout the Ninth Circuit hold differing views on how much a plaintiff must plead to assert a bona fide religious belief and indeed “American courts are loath to tell a person that his interpretation of his faith is a wrong one.” Hittle v. City of Stockton, 2022 WL 616722, *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2022), affd, 76 F.4th 877 (9th Cir. 2023). Nonetheless, the undersigned is aligned with those courts that are hesitant to find that broad statements of religious opposition are sufficient to state a viable claim, particularly given that plaintiffs are required to plead more than conclusory allegations that merely recite the elements of a given cause of action. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements” are insufficient); Kather v. Asante Health Sys., 2023 WL 4865533, *5 (D. Or. July 28, 2023) (“vague expressions of sincerely held Christian beliefs alone cannot serve as a blanket excuse for avoiding all unwanted employment obligations” and a “‘threadbare reference' to religious beliefs is insufficient at the motion to dismiss stage”).
To the extent the allegations and exemption request actually invoke Christian faith, plaintiff nonetheless neglected to identify any religious tenet or teaching that conflicts with Legacy Health's policy. See Rogers v. Neb. Urb. Indian Health Coal., Inc., 2023 WL 2990720, *5 (D. Neb. Apr. 18, 2023) (dismissing a Title VII claim where the plaintiff did 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”); see also Stephens v. Legacy-GoHealth Urgent Care, 2023 WL 7612395, *4-6 (D. Or. Oct. 23), adopted as clarified by 2023 WL 7623865 (D. Or. Nov. 14, 2023) (“[g]eneral references to Christianity do not meet even a ‘fairly minimal' burden at the pleading stage, as such allegations are conclusory and fail to plausibly to suggest that a plaintiff's anti-vaccination beliefs are in fact religious”).
In addition, defendant argues that plaintiff failed to adequately inform it of her bona fide religious belief in conflict with the vaccine mandate. The accommodation request in the record incorporated by reference in the First Amended Complaint is devoid of any specifics concerning plaintiff's religious beliefs. “An employee cannot shirk his duties to try to accommodate himself or to cooperate with his employer in reaching an accommodation by a mere recalcitrant citation of religious precepts.” Chrysler Corp. v. Mann, 561 F.2d 1282, 1285-86 (8th Cir. 1977). Stated differently, the employee bears the burden of establishing that “she informed her employer of the [bona fide religious] belief and conflict.” Tiano, 139 F.3d at 681. This Court accepts that plaintiff holds bona fide Christian beliefs, however her broad invocations of faith are not sufficient to state a claim in this context. To the extent plaintiff asserts defendant is estopped from challenging the sincerity of her beliefs, that is not the issue-the issue is whether plaintiff adequately informed defendant of that belief. The allegations, including the religious exemption request, are insufficient in this regard. Given that plaintiff cannot amend her religious exemption request, any attempt to amend to cure that deficiency in the operative pleading before the Court would be futile. See Kather, 2023 WL 4865533, at *5 (inability to amend religious exception requests submitted to Defendant and incorporated into their Complaint, renders amendment futile). Moreover, plaintiff has now had an opportunity to amend her complaint to allege a bona fide religious belief in conflict with defendant's policy and has failed to aver any facts to support this element of her claim. It is now apparent that a third opportunity to allege such facts would also be futile.
CONCLUSION
Defendant Legacy Health's motion to dismiss (ECF 17) should be granted with prejudice. A judgment should enter.
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.