Zarn v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

Benjamin Zarn worked for the Minnesota Department of Human Services as a Forensic Support Specialist at St. Peter Regional Treatment Center. His duties required direct interaction with patients, and he remained employed by the agency during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

In September 2021, the agency adopted a policy requiring employees to provide proof of vaccination. Employees who declined vaccination could instead undergo weekly COVID-19 testing, and employees who refused weekly testing could face discipline, including termination. Zarn believed vaccination and weekly testing conflicted with his Roman Catholic beliefs. He signed an agreement to undergo weekly testing, unsuccessfully sought an accommodation, and continued testing until the agency rescinded the policy.

The agency also adopted a COVID-19 pay policy. It allowed fully vaccinated employees who contracted COVID-19 and exhausted their sick leave to use paid administrative leave while isolating. Zarn believed this policy discriminated against his beliefs, but he never requested COVID pay.

Zarn filed one charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging religious discrimination based on the vaccination-or-testing requirement and another alleging disability discrimination based on that requirement. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did not investigate and issued right-to-sue letters. Zarn then sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Minnesota law. The court had already dismissed his Minnesota Human Rights Act claim and his claim under Minnesota’s refusal-of-treatment statute. The remaining claims concerned Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Summary-judgment standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. It considered the evidence in the light most favorable to Zarn and asked whether a genuine dispute existed about a material fact and whether DHS was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court stated that allegations must be supported by evidence that could allow a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party, rather than by speculation.

COVID-19 pay-policy claims and administrative exhaustion

DHS argued that Zarn’s claims concerning the COVID-19 pay policy should be dismissed because he had not first presented those claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Zarn argued that his charges concerning the vaccination-and-testing policy also covered the COVID-19 pay policy.

The court held that Zarn failed to exhaust the required administrative remedies for the COVID-19 pay-policy claims. His Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charges referred only to the vaccination and weekly-testing requirement, not the separate COVID-19 pay policy. The court concluded that the charges did not give DHS notice of alleged discrimination arising from the pay policy.

The court also noted that Zarn never requested COVID pay, the record did not show that he discussed the alleged discriminatory nature of COVID pay with anyone at DHS, and the record did not establish that he had exhausted his sick leave as the policy required. The court therefore granted DHS summary judgment on the COVID-19 pay-policy claims.

Title VII claim

Zarn alleged that DHS discriminated against him because of his religion and failed to accommodate his religious beliefs. The court explained that he needed to show a sincere religious belief conflicting with an employment requirement, that he informed DHS about the conflict, and that he suffered an adverse employment action.

The court assumed, for purposes of the motion, that Zarn had a sincere religious belief. It found, however, that he did not show DHS was informed that weekly testing conflicted with his religion. His supervisor testified that she understood his concerns as objections to the fairness of the COVID-19 policies, not as a religious conflict. His union president sought clarification about exemptions but did not tell DHS that Zarn had a religious conflict with testing or make an accommodation request for him. Zarn’s communications with the Minnesota Management and Budget Commission did not mention a religious objection to testing, and the record did not show how those communications informed DHS. His later inquiry about filing a hostile-work-environment complaint also did not establish that DHS learned of a religious conflict with testing.

The court further held that Zarn did not show an adverse employment action. Because he had not informed DHS of a religious conflict with testing, the court reasoned that DHS could not have denied him a religious accommodation. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Zarn had informed DHS of the conflict and granted summary judgment to DHS on the Title VII claim.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

Zarn brought his ADA claim under the provision restricting medical examinations and disability-related inquiries unless they are job-related and consistent with business necessity. DHS argued that vaccination-status inquiries and weekly COVID-19 testing did not seek information about disability status. Zarn primarily argued that DHS could not show a business necessity for weekly testing and did not explain how the policy could reveal disability information.

The court followed decisions from the District of Minnesota concluding that similar COVID-19 vaccination and testing requirements did not constitute unlawful medical examinations under the ADA. It held that Zarn had not shown how DHS’s policy could reveal his disability status and granted DHS summary judgment on the ADA claims.

Order

The court granted DHS’s Motion for Summary Judgment. It ordered that Zarn’s remaining claims be dismissed with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.