Conner v. Raver

Background

Rochelle Conner was employed by the City of Emeryville as an executive assistant. In October 2021, the City adopted a COVID-19 policy requiring employees either to provide proof of vaccination or to undergo weekly testing. Conner alleged that sincerely held religious beliefs prevented her from receiving the vaccine or participating in COVID-19 testing. She requested a religious exemption and submitted materials from First Century Bible Church and her own written explanation.

The City asked Conner to identify the religious belief supporting her request, explain how it conflicted with the vaccination and testing requirements, and explain why any objection to testing was limited to COVID-19 testing if she did not object to all medical testing. Conner declined to provide additional information beyond what she had already submitted. The City denied her request and terminated her employment.

Conner’s lawsuit initially asserted Title VII claims for failure to accommodate, retaliation, and disparate impact, as well as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In an earlier order, the court dismissed all claims except the Title VII retaliation and failure-to-accommodate claims. Conner then filed an amended complaint that did not include the retaliation claim.

Retaliation Claim

The City argued that Conner had abandoned the retaliation claim by leaving it out of her amended complaint. Conner responded that she believed the amended complaint related back to her original complaint and asked for an opportunity to correct the omission.

The court agreed with Conner. It explained that the court had initially dismissed the retaliation claim, which led Conner to omit it. In a later order, the court acknowledged that it had applied the wrong burden when considering the City’s dismissal motion and denied the motion as to retaliation. Although that order directed Conner to file an amended complaint, it did not clearly tell her that she needed to plead the retaliation claim again. The court therefore allowed her to file an amended complaint asserting retaliation and any other claims she intended to pursue, along with all supporting facts and exhibits. The court stated that the amended complaint would completely replace the earlier complaints and could not incorporate their contents by reference.

Failure-to-Accommodate Claim

Title VII requires covered employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious needs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer’s business. To plead a basic failure-to-accommodate claim, an employee must allege that she had a genuine religious belief that conflicted with a job requirement, informed the employer about the belief and conflict, and suffered an adverse employment action because she could not meet the requirement.

The City argued that Conner had not adequately alleged the required conflict between her religious beliefs and the City’s policy. The court treated this argument as a request to reconsider its earlier ruling because a later decision, Weiss v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., had changed the relevant legal landscape.

The court held that Conner had not given the City enough information to understand the conflict between her religious practices and the vaccination and testing policy. It found that her statements were generic, including assertions that she had authority to make her own decisions about medical services and that the requirements were driven by spiritual wickedness. The court also noted that Conner did not answer whether she objected to all medical testing or explain why her objection was limited to COVID-19 testing.

Relying on the reasoning of Weiss, the court concluded that these explanations amounted to a broad exception that could be used to avoid unwanted obligations and did not adequately identify the conflict required for a Title VII accommodation claim. The court dismissed the failure-to-accommodate claim but granted Conner one opportunity to amend because she had not previously been required to address Weiss’s reasoning.

Disposition

The order is titled as granting in part and denying in part the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court allowed Conner to amend to reassert retaliation and dismissed the failure-to-accommodate claim, while granting leave to amend solely to correct the deficiencies identified in the order. Conner was directed to file an amended complaint within 28 days. The order states that if she did not do so, the court would dismiss the case with prejudice. The conclusion also refers to the motion as a motion to dismiss.