Opinion
1:23-cv-01722-CL
10-02-2024
BRANDIE VARGAS, et al, Plaintiffs, v. ASANTE ROGUE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, et al, Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Mark D. Clarke United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiffs bring religious discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Oregon law against their former employer, Defendant Asante Rogue Regional Medical . Center, LLC, (“Asante”). They allege that Asante unlawfully terminated their employment when Plaintiffs declined, based on religious belief, to be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus. Defendant Asante moves to dismiss Plaintiff Brandie Vargas for failing to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6). Asante argues that Vargas failed to allege sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. For the reasons below, Asante's Motion to Dismiss (#5) should be DENIED.
BACKGROUND
In August 2021, the Oregon Health Authority (“OHA”) enacted an administrative rule (“the Mandate”) requiring healthcare workers in Oregon to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by a deadline of October 18, 2021. The Mandate permitted healthcare employers to grant religious exceptions to employees upon request. Defendant Asante required employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by September 30, 2021, except employees with approved religious exception requests.
Plaintiff Brandie Vargas was employed for approximately seventeen years by Asante as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) at Rogue Regional Medical Center, in Medford, Oregon. Plaintiff Vargas consistently received top performance reviews and trained all new hires in inpatient rehabilitation from 2008-2010 and in short stay surgery from 2011-2021. Complaint (“Compl.”) IP 8(#1). Plaintiff Vargas alleges the following specific facts regarding the sequence of events leading to her termination:
Plaintiff Vargas is a Christian with deeply held beliefs and she is a believer and follower of Jesus Christ. Her moral, ethical and Biblical beliefs prevented her from taking any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. As such, when the COVID-19 vaccine was mandated for all workers at Asante, Plaintiff Vargas submitted her request for a religious exception, anticipating that it would be granted, and that she would be accommodated in her job. Plaintiff Vargas did not want to use the Oregon Health Authority form, but submitted notarized affidavits, which were eventually accepted.Compl. ¶¶x 9-10. .
LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter that “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face when the factual allegations allow the court to infer the defendant's liability based on the alleged conduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). The factual allegations must present more than “the mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 678.
When considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept all allegations of material fact as true and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Burgert v. Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir. 2000). But the court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. If the complaint is dismissed, leave to amend should be granted unless “the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Do e v. United States, 5 8 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995). .
DISCUSSION
Defendant's Motion (#5) should be DENIED. Defendant Asante moves to dismiss Plaintiff Vargas because her allegations are conclusory and she has not plausibly alleged any facts that would establish her anti-vaccination beliefs are religious in nature or constitute a religious conflict to be protected under Title VII or ORS 659A.030. The Court disagrees.
Plaintiff Vargas alleges employment discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, - and ORS 659A.030(1)(a). Title VII makes it is unlawful for an employer to discharge an' employee because of their religion. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); Heller v. EBB Auto Co., 8 F.3d 1433, 1437 (9th Cir. 1993). The term “religion” encompasses all aspects of religious practice and belief. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j); Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 2004). Title VII failure-to-accommodate claims are analyzed under a two-part, burden-shifting framework. Tiano v DillardDep't Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679, 681 (9th Cir. 1998). A plaintiff must first plead a prima facie case of religious discrimination. Id. If an employee articulates a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to show that it made good-faith efforts to reasonably accommodate the religious practice or that it could not accommodate without undue . hardship. Id.
Claims brought under ORS 659A.030(1)(a) are analyzed under the same framework as claims brought under Title VII. Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Med. Ctr., No. 22-cv-01306,2022 WL 19977290, slip op. at *3 (D. Or. Dec. 20, 2022).
To assert a prima facie failure-to-accommodate claim under Title VII, plaintiffs must allege that (1) they “had a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicted with an employment duty;” (2) they “informed [their] employer of the belief and conflict;” and (3) “the employer discharged, threatened, or otherwise subjected [them] to an adverse employment action because of [their] inability to fulfill the job requirement.” Peterson, 358 F.3d at 606. “A bona fide religious belief is one that is ‘sincerely held.'” Keene v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 22-16567, 2023 WL 3451687, at *1 (9th Cir. May 15, 2023). A court should generally accept the assertion of a sincerely held religious belief. Id. at *2; Beuca v. Wash. State Univ., No. 23-CV-0069, 2023 WL 3575503, slip op. at *2 (E.D. Wash. May 19, 2023) (declining to “second-guess” or “scrutinize” the plaintiffs claim that merely stated he had a religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine). And the burden to allege a religious conflict with an employment duty is minimal. Bolden-Hardge v. Office of the Cal. State Controller, 63 F.4th 1215, 1223 (9th Cir. 2023); Collins v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 22-CV-00076, 2023 WL 2731047, at *7 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2023) (ruling that a plaintiff established a prima facie case by simply identifying as a Christian who opposed the COVID-19 vaccine due to the use of fetal cell tissue).
However, a court need not take “conclusory assertions of violations of religious beliefs at face value.” Bolden-Hardge, 63 F.4th at 1223. A “threadbare reference” to the plaintiffs religious beliefs is insufficient to satisfy the first element of a prima facie case. Gage v. Mayo Clinic, No. CV-22-02091, 2023 WL 3230986, slip op. at *3 (D. Ariz. May 3, 2023). Title VII . does not protect medical, economic, political, or social preferences. See Tiano, 139 F.3d at 682; Detwiler, 2022 WL 19977290, at *4 (finding plaintiffs objection to regular COVID-19 antigen testing to be secular because she believed tests were carcinogenic and would cause more harm than good); Brox v. Hole, 590 F.Supp.3d 363, 366 (D. Mass. 2022).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) provided Title VII guidance on religious accommodations to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The EEOC explained that “an employee's request for an exemption from a COVID-19 vaccination mandate can be denied on the grounds that the employee's belief is not truly religious in nature.” Doe v. San Diego UnifiedSch. Dist., 19 F.4th 1173, 1180 (9th Cir. 2021). The guidance underscores that objections to COVID-19 vaccines “purely based on social, political, or economic views or personal preferences ... (including about the possible effects of the vaccine)” are not religious beliefs under Title VII. What You Should Know About CO VID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws at L.2, EEOC, https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-iaws (Oct. 25, 2021) (last visited July 24, 2023). However, overlapping secular and religious objections do not place a requested accommodation outside the scope of Title VII. Id.
In Rolovich v. Washington State University, the plaintiffs complaint stated he was a “practicing Catholic” and his “study of the Bible, personal prayer,... advice from a Catholic priest, and the teachings of the Church ... precluded him from receiving any available COVID-19 vaccine.” No. 22-CV-0319, 2023 WL 3733894, slip op. at *3 (E.D. Wash. May 30, 2023). The defendant moved to dismiss based on the plaintiffs alleged failure to plead how his sincerely held religious belief specifically conflicted with the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Id. The district court found the plaintiffs general assertion that his Catholic faith motivated his objection to the vaccine was satisfactory at the pleading stage to allege a religious conflict with an employment duty. Id. The plaintiff did not need to explain in detail how the vaccine conflicted with his Catholic faith. .
Here, Plaintiff Vargas has asserted that her faith motivated her to object to the vaccine: . her “moral, ethical and Biblical beliefs prevented her from taking any of the available COVID-19 vaccines.” COmpl. ¶ 9. She “submitted her request for a religious exception,” by submitting “notarized affidavits, which were eventually accepted.” Id. These affidavits, incorporated by reference into the Complaint, have been submitted by Asante for the Court's review. See United . States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir.2003) (“Even if a document is not attached to a complaint, it may be incorporated by reference into a complaint if the plaintiff refers extensively to the document or the document forms the basis of the plaintiffs claim”). The requests included these statements:
I, Brandie Vargas, have and hold a solemn, sincere, religious conviction or conscientious objection to any treatment or prophylactic measure.Payne Decl. Ex. 1.
[W]here Asante exalts itself in.purporting to place an unbeliever in a position to judge the Word of God, it is blasphemy, satanic, sinful, untruth and insultive trespass.Payne Decl., Ex. 2.
The Court agrees with Asante that these factual allegations are extremely sparse, and somewhat conclusory. However, at this stage, the burden to allege a prima facie case is minimal. Plaintiff Vargas has pled, and her affidavit-requests to Asante show, that she expressed a religious conflict with receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, and she timely submitted these requests to Asante. She has met her burden on this issue.
RECOMMENDATION
Asante's Motion to Dismiss (#5) should be DENIED.
SCHEDULING
This Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due no later than fourteen (14) days after the date this recommendation is entered. If objections are filed, any response is.due within fourteen (14) days after the date the objections are filed. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72, 6. .
Parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).