Goecke v. 3M Company

Background

Richard R. Goecke sued his former employer, 3M Company, alleging disability and religious discrimination under state and federal law. His claims arose from 3M’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement. The court had previously dismissed his disability claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, leaving his religious-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

3M told its U.S.-based employees that they had to be fully vaccinated and provide proof of vaccination by December 8, 2021, while allowing employees to request medical or religious exemptions. Employees who did not receive an exemption or become vaccinated would be reviewed for termination. Goecke requested a religious exemption, but his communications also expressed concerns about vaccine safety and the availability of particular vaccines. He said he would probably retire if his exemption request was denied and submitted paperwork seeking to begin pension benefits with his last day of employment on November 30, 2021.

3M later extended the vaccination deadline to January 4, 2022, and then withdrew the requirement on December 13, 2021, after a federal court order halted the federal-contractor vaccine mandate. Goecke had already left 3M by then and testified that he did not try to return to work after learning that the policy had been reversed. The opinion states that 3M denied his religious-exemption request on November 30, 2025, but the surrounding facts identify the relevant events as occurring in 2021.

Legal standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A material fact could affect the outcome, and a dispute is genuine only if the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to rule for the nonmoving party.

To establish a basic case of religious discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that the plaintiff was protected because of religious beliefs, met the employer’s legitimate expectations, suffered an adverse employment action, and experienced circumstances suggesting discrimination.

Adverse employment action

The court held that Goecke had not shown an adverse employment action, meaning a disadvantageous change in the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Goecke left 3M before the initial vaccination deadline, before the extended deadline, and before 3M disciplined or terminated him. The vaccination requirement was never implemented against him, and 3M later revoked it entirely.

The court acknowledged that the vaccination requirement may have motivated Goecke’s decision to retire. But it held that anticipation of possible future harm was not enough because Goecke had not actually suffered a discriminatory change in his employment conditions. The court also noted that Goecke did not attempt to return to work after the requirement was withdrawn.

Constructive discharge

The court also rejected Goecke’s alternative theory of constructive discharge, sometimes called forced retirement. A constructive-discharge claim requires evidence that a reasonable person would have found the working conditions intolerable and that the employer intended to force the employee to quit. The employee must also give the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the allegedly intolerable condition before quitting.

The court found no evidence that Goecke’s opposition to vaccination caused any actual change in his working conditions, such as reassignment, criticism, being singled out, or discipline. The record showed that his supervisor expressed surprise and disappointment but otherwise sought to respect Goecke’s position and gave him control over how his retirement would be announced. The court further found that Goecke left before missing a vaccination deadline and before 3M imposed any discipline or termination consequence. Because he did not give 3M a reasonable opportunity to address an objectionable condition, his constructive-discharge theory also failed.

Disposition

The court granted 3M’s Motion for Summary Judgment. It declined to address 3M’s remaining arguments concerning the sincerity of Goecke’s religious objection and whether the denial of his accommodation request supported an inference of discrimination. The court ordered that the matter be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered accordingly.