Weiss v. The Permanente Medical Group, Inc.

Background

Mimi Weiss worked for The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. from 2000 until January 10, 2022, apart from a brief period between December 2015 and April 2017. At the time of her termination, she was a Managerial Senior Consultant with the Regional Department, Health Engagement Consulting Services.

In August 2021, TPMG adopted a policy requiring employees to provide proof of full COVID-19 vaccination or obtain an approved exemption by September 30, 2021. Employees without vaccination or an approved exemption would be placed on unpaid leave for 60 days and then terminated if they still did not comply.

Weiss identifies as a “Christian Jew.” She alleged that her religious beliefs prevented her from taking the vaccine because she was not allowed to accept foreign materials into her body. She submitted a religious-exemption request, which TPMG provisionally granted on August 30, 2021. TPMG later said it was reviewing the request because many employees had submitted similar language, including language taken from internet templates, and because employees had discussed strategies for avoiding the vaccine requirement.

TPMG asked Weiss for additional information. She refused to answer several questions, considering them intrusive and a violation of privacy. TPMG denied her exemption request on November 30, 2021. Weiss was placed on unpaid leave on December 5, 2021, and terminated on January 10, 2022, for failing to comply with the policy.

Weiss’s amended complaint asserted eight claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act: religious discrimination based on different treatment, failure to provide a religious accommodation, retaliation, and religious coercion or harassment under Title VII; and corresponding religious-discrimination, accommodation, retaliation, and failure-to-prevent-discrimination-and-harassment claims under California law. TPMG moved to dismiss claims one, three, five, and seven.

Legal standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states enough facts to present a legally plausible claim. The court was required to accept the complaint’s material allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in Weiss’s favor at this stage.

Disparate-treatment claims

Claims one and five alleged religious discrimination through disparate treatment under Title VII and the California statute. Disparate treatment means treating a person less favorably because of a protected characteristic. Because TPMG’s vaccination policy was facially neutral, Weiss also needed facts supporting an inference that TPMG applied it with discriminatory intent.

Weiss identified a coworker, Alicia Okoh, whose religious-exemption request was approved. The court held that Weiss had not alleged enough facts showing that Okoh and Weiss had similar job responsibilities or engaged in similar conduct. The court also noted that the two exemption requests used different language and that Weiss had not shown that the different results were caused by their differing religious beliefs. Weiss’s allegation that two-thirds of approximately 25,000 exemption requests were approved also did not show that those employees were similarly situated to her.

The court rejected Weiss’s argument that TPMG employees’ failure to respond to her efforts to discuss the denial supported an inference of discrimination. The court observed that TPMG had followed up with Weiss to seek additional information and concluded that it was not required to continue the discussion after she declined to provide it.

The court also found that Weiss had not alleged facts showing discriminatory intent. The policy required vaccination regardless of religious identity unless an exemption was granted, and Weiss had not alleged facts showing that the policy was designed to discriminate against “Christian Jews.” The court concluded that her termination appeared to result from applying the uniform policy, rather than from discrimination based on religion.

Retaliation claims

Claims three and seven alleged retaliation under Title VII and the California statute. The parties agreed that Weiss engaged in protected activity by requesting a religious exemption and that her termination was an adverse employment action. The court found, however, that Weiss had not adequately alleged a causal link between the exemption request and her termination.

The court reasoned that the complaint did not sufficiently show that TPMG terminated Weiss because she requested an exemption rather than because she failed to comply with the policy after her exemption request was denied. The court therefore concluded that the retaliation claims were insufficiently pleaded.

Disposition

The court granted TPMG’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed claims one, three, five, and seven with leave to amend. The opinion does not state a disposition for the four claims that TPMG did not challenge in this motion.