Witham v. Hershey Company, The

Background

Christopher Witham sued his former employer, The Hershey Company, alleging religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. He alleged that Hershey terminated his employment after denying his request for a religious exemption from the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The court previously dismissed his other claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for failure to state a claim. The only remaining claim was his claim that Hershey failed to accommodate his religious belief.

The parties filed cross-motions to compel discovery. Hershey sought communications, social-media activity, internet history, and documents concerning Witham’s views about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Witham sought information about Hershey’s creation and implementation of its vaccine mandate, its treatment of other employees’ religious-accommodation requests, and the costs of accommodating his beliefs.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits discovery of nonprivileged information that is relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Proportionality considers factors including the importance of the issues, the amount at stake, the parties’ access to information and resources, the importance of the discovery, and whether the burden outweighs its likely benefit. Under Rule 37, a party may ask the court to compel adequate responses to certain discovery requests. The court did not consider the part of Witham’s motion concerning requests for admission because the court stated that it may not compel responses to those requests.

Hershey’s motion to compel

The court found that information about the nature and sincerity of Witham’s claimed religious beliefs was relevant. To prevail on his remaining religious-discrimination claim, Witham would need to prove, among other things, that he had a genuine religious belief conflicting with an employment requirement. The court explained that its earlier conclusion that Witham had adequately pleaded this element did not conclusively establish it for trial.

The court also held that Hershey could seek information that might undermine Witham’s evidence, including evidence concerning whether his objection to the vaccines was religious rather than based on personal preferences or other reasons. The court distinguished between consistency of a person’s own beliefs over time and whether beliefs are consistent with the beliefs of other members of the same religion. It concluded that proportionate discovery into Witham’s own beliefs and statements concerning COVID-19 and vaccines was permitted.

The court found that Witham had not made a specific showing that the discovery was unduly burdensome or explained how it should be narrowed. It therefore granted Hershey’s motion to compel as to Requests for Production Nos. 9, 13, 18 through 23, 26, 31, 32, 46 through 48, and 60. The production had to include text messages as specified in the relevant requests.

Witham’s motion to compel

The court denied Witham’s request for broad discovery into Hershey’s creation and implementation of the vaccine mandate. The court held that the remaining failure-to-accommodate claim does not turn on Hershey’s general intent or motive when creating the mandate. The court further concluded that, even if Hershey’s motive were marginally relevant, the broad scope of the requested discovery outweighed its potential benefit.

The court found that information about Hershey’s evaluation of other employees’ religious-accommodation requests was relevant because similar incidents could bear on the reason for Hershey’s denial of Witham’s request. But the court held that Witham was not entitled to every document concerning more than 100 employees. It limited the discovery to the religious-exemption request files of 25 employees who worked in a Hershey function most similar to Witham’s. Hershey had to remove the employees’ names and other personally identifying information. The court otherwise denied this part of Witham’s motion to compel without prejudice, allowing him to seek additional discovery later if further justification emerged after reviewing the permitted materials.

The court granted Witham’s motion to compel discovery about the potential costs to Hershey of accommodating his religious beliefs and the actual costs Hershey incurred in terminating him. The court found this information relevant to Hershey’s defense that accommodation would have created an undue hardship. Under the standard discussed in Groff v. DeJoy, an undue hardship involves a burden that is substantial in the overall context of the employer’s business.

Disposition

The court ordered that The Hershey Company’s motion to compel was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It also ordered that Christopher Witham’s motion to compel was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as described above. This discovery order did not decide the merits of Witham’s remaining discrimination claim.