See Trinh v. Shriners Hospitals for Children, No. 3:22-cv-01999-SB, at *10, 2023 WL 7525228, (D. Or. Oct. 23, 2023) (conclusory “‘bodily integrity' and ‘purity' objections” insufficient to plead religious belief on motion to dismiss). CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs' antivaccination beliefs are religious in nature and are actually protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Trinh v. Shriners Hosps. for Children, 2023 WL 7525228, * 10 (D. Or. Oct. 23, 2023).
See Trinh v. Shriners Hospitals for Children, No. 3:22-cv-01999-SB, at *10, 2023 WL 7525228, (D. Or. Oct. 23, 2023) (conclusory “‘bodily integrity' and ‘purity' objections” insufficient to plead religious belief on motion to dismiss).
Id. at *3. Similarly, in Trinh v. Shriners Hospitals for Children, No. 3:22-cv-01999-SB, at *19 (D. Or. October 23, 2023), the plaintiff's stated basis for a religious exception was nearly identical to that Plaintiff asserts in this case. There, the plaintiff alleged “serious objections to taking the vaccine because it would constitute violating her bodily integrity and tainting the purity of her body.
See Stephens v. Legacy-GoHealth Urgent Care, No. 3:23-cv-00206-SB, 2023 WL 7612395, at *7-9 (D. Or. Oct. 23, 2023) (citing Keene, 2023 WL 3451687, at *1-2 and Kather v. Asante Health Sys., No. 22-1842-MC, 2023 WL 4865533, at *4-5 (D. Or. July 28, 2023)), findings and recommendation adopted in full and clarified in part, 2023 WL 7623865, at *1 (D. Or. Nov. 14, 2023); Trinh v. Shriners Hosps. for Children, No. 3:22-cv-01999-SB, 2023 WL 7525228, at *10-11 (D. Or. Oct. 23, 2023) (citing Keene, 2023 WL 3451687, at *1-2 and Kather, 2023 WL 4865533, at *4)), findings and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 7521441, at *1 (D. Or Nov. 13, 2023); see alsoKather, 2023 WL 4865533, at *4-5 (noting that the plaintiff relied on her “‘Christianity' and resistance to receiving a vaccine developed with fetal cell lines,” and holding that the plaintiff “adequately alleged a sincerely held religious belief, the practice of which conflicts with receiving a COVID-19 vaccine”)
This Court has previously recognized that in a vaccine mandate case, a plaintiff can state a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement by alleging Christian-based beliefs in the sanctity of life and opposition to taking a vaccine connected to, or derived even remotely from, aborted fetal cell lines. See Stephens v. Legacy-GoHealth Urgent Care, No. 3:23-cv-00206-SB, 2023 WL 7612395, at *7-9 (D. Or. Oct. 23, 2023) (citing Keene, 2023 WL 3451687, at *1-2 and Kather v. Asante Health Sys., No. 22-1842-MC, 2023 WL 4865533, at *4-5 (D. Or. July 28, 2023)), findings and recommendation adopted in full and clarified in part, 2023 WL 7623865, at *1 (D. Or. Nov. 14, 2023); Trinh v. Shriners Hosps. for Children, No. 3:22-cv-01999-SB, 2023 WL 7525228, at *10-11 (D. Or. Oct. 23, 2023) (citing Keene, 2023 WL 3451687, at *1-2 and Kather, 2023 WL 4865533, at *4)), findings and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 7521441, at *1 (D. Or Nov. 13, 2023); see also Kather, 2023 WL 4865533, at *4-5 (holding that the plaintiff “adequately alleged a sincerely held religious belief, the practice of which conflicts with receiving a COVID-19 vaccine,” and noting that the plaintiff relied on her “‘Christianity' and resistance to receiving a vaccine developed with fetal cell lines”).