Bowie v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.

Background

Richard Bowie sought an exemption from Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement. He told Kaiser that, as a Christian, he believed his “body is the temple of the Holy Spirit” and that what he put into his body was between him and God. When Kaiser asked for more information, including what other things he refused to put into his body because of his religious belief, Bowie mentioned that he had previously declined a flu vaccine but otherwise repeated that his choices about what to put into his body were between him and God.

Bowie asserted a religious-accommodation claim under Title VII, the federal employment-discrimination law, and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. He also asserted a disparate-treatment claim, alleging that Kaiser granted about two-thirds of more than 16,000 religious-accommodation requests. Finally, he asserted retaliation based on Kaiser’s revocation of his email access and termination for refusing to comply with the vaccination requirement.

Court’s Analysis

For a religious-accommodation claim, the court said a plaintiff must allege that a genuine religious belief conflicts with a job duty, that the employer was informed of the belief and conflict, and that the employer took adverse action because the plaintiff could not fulfill the job requirement.

The court held that Bowie did not adequately inform Kaiser of the conflict. He did not explain why his religious belief conflicted with vaccines generally or with Kaiser’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement specifically. The court said his response did not provide enough information for Kaiser to distinguish a religious objection from a general personal objection to being told what to put in his body. Because Bowie did not adequately answer Kaiser’s reasonable request for more information, the court held that Kaiser was justified in denying the requested accommodation as a matter of law.

For disparate treatment, the court said Bowie needed to allege that similarly situated people outside his protected group received more favorable treatment, or facts supporting an inference of discrimination. The court found that Bowie’s allegation about Kaiser granting roughly two-thirds of the accommodation requests was insufficient because he provided no details showing that those people were similarly situated in relevant respects, including their job duties, religious beliefs, or explanations of the conflict with the vaccination policy.

The court further held that Kaiser’s reasonable denial of the exemption defeated Bowie’s retaliation claim based on the revocation of email access and termination.

Disposition

The court granted Kaiser’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the claims with leave to amend and gave Bowie 14 days from the order to file an amended complaint. The court stated that if Bowie did not file an amended complaint by that deadline, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also said it seemed highly unlikely that Bowie could correct the religious-discrimination claims, but it allowed amendment as a precaution.