Klimek v. CentraCare Health System

Background

In August 2021, CentraCare required its employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine or obtain an approved medical or religious exemption. Employees who did not comply could be placed on unpaid leave. The policy required medical-exemption applicants to provide physician documentation showing a diagnosis considered a contraindication to COVID-19 vaccination.

Christine Klimek, a registered nurse who had worked for CentraCare since 2008, had complex regional pain syndrome, also called regional sympathetic dystrophy. She requested a medical exemption, relying on an earlier exemption CentraCare had granted in 2016 for live vaccinations. CentraCare told her that COVID-19 vaccines were not live or attenuated vaccines and required her to apply under the newer COVID-19 policy.

Klimek submitted a request and a statement from her primary-care provider saying that Klimek had regional sympathetic dystrophy and that vaccination was not recommended. Klimek did not submit the additional medical documentation referenced by the provider. CentraCare physicians Thomas Math and Jill Amsberry separately reviewed and denied the request because they concluded that the condition was not a recognized contraindication to COVID-19 vaccination. CentraCare later offered Klimek another opportunity to provide medical documentation and offered to extend her compliance deadline while Dr. George Morris discussed vaccination safety with her care providers. Klimek did not provide the additional documentation and declined the deadline extension.

CentraCare placed Klimek on unpaid leave on December 15, 2021. After exhausting her administrative remedies and receiving a right-to-sue notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Klimek sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Both parties moved for summary judgment on CentraCare’s liability. Klimek also moved for summary judgment on CentraCare’s “direct threat” affirmative defense.

Disability-discrimination claims

The court applied the same standard to the ADA and MHRA claims. To establish disability discrimination, Klimek had to show that she had a qualifying disability, was a qualified employee, and suffered an adverse employment action because of her disability. A failure-to-accommodate claim also required her to show that CentraCare failed to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The court found a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Klimek’s condition substantially limited a major life activity under the ADA. The court therefore denied Klimek’s motion for summary judgment on CentraCare’s liability. But that factual dispute did not prevent summary judgment for CentraCare because an employer may defeat a discrimination claim by disproving another required element.

Qualified employee and requested accommodation

The court held that compliance with CentraCare’s COVID-19 policy was an essential job function. The policy required employees either to be vaccinated or to qualify for a medical or religious exemption. The court relied on CentraCare’s judgment during the pandemic, the staffing shortages caused by COVID-19, the possibility that remotely working nurses could be called to provide in-person care, and CentraCare’s interest in limiting infection among staff, patients, and surrounding communities.

The court rejected Klimek’s argument that her fully remote position meant that continuing to work from home was the relevant accommodation. It determined that her requested accommodation was a medical exemption from vaccination. The court also stated that, even if working from home were treated as the requested accommodation, that arrangement would not enable her to perform the essential function of complying with the COVID-19 policy; it would instead relieve her of that requirement.

The court ruled that the requested medical exemption was not a reasonable accommodation because it was not related to Klimek’s purported disability. The earlier exemption covered live vaccinations, while the parties did not dispute that COVID-19 vaccines were not live vaccines. The record also did not contain documentation showing that complex regional pain syndrome was a contraindication to COVID-19 vaccination. The court held that CentraCare could rely on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance identifying recognized contraindications when evaluating the exemption request.

Because Klimek could not show that her requested accommodation was reasonable, the court concluded that she could not establish that CentraCare discriminated against her or failed to accommodate her disability. The court separately discussed CentraCare’s handling of the interactive process and found that CentraCare had acted in good faith by offering another opportunity to submit documentation and proposing an extended deadline and discussions with her care providers.

Unreached issue and disposition

The court did not reach the merits of CentraCare’s “direct threat” affirmative defense because it concluded that CentraCare was entitled to summary judgment by defeating an element of Klimek’s prima facie disability-discrimination case.

The court ordered that CentraCare’s motion for summary judgment was granted, Klimek’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and Klimek’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.