Kehren v. Olmsted Medical Center

Background

Jessica Kehren, Marie Knutson, Ashley Brandeland-Gathje, and Anna Emond were former employees of Olmsted Medical Center who provided in-person patient care. In September 2021, Olmsted Medical Center adopted a policy requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or to comply with specified alternatives, including submitting a declination form. The policy allowed employees to request medical or religious exemptions. Employees with approved exemptions still had to complete education about COVID-19 and the vaccine and undergo weekly testing.

The plaintiffs alleged that they had sincere religious objections to receiving the vaccines. Each requested a religious exemption, and Brandeland-Gathje also requested an accommodation from COVID-19 testing. The requests were denied, and the plaintiffs were discharged in November 2021 because they had not been vaccinated and had not received an exemption.

The amended complaint asserted religious-discrimination and religious-accommodation claims under Title VII, religious-discrimination and religious-accommodation claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Olmsted Medical Center moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, as to the Minnesota Human Rights Act and disability-law claims. It also asked the court to strike the references to punitive damages.

Minnesota Human Rights Act claims

The court dismissed Count 2. It held that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege religious discrimination because they did not allege that they were replaced by people outside their protected class or facts showing that they were treated differently because of their religion. Instead, the complaint alleged that the vaccination policy applied to all employees and that the plaintiffs were terminated for refusing the vaccine.

The court separately held that the Minnesota Human Rights Act does not require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious beliefs. The court contrasted that statute with Title VII, which expressly requires religious accommodation, and noted that the Minnesota statute expressly addresses reasonable accommodation for disabilities but does not expressly require religious accommodation. The court therefore held that the plaintiffs’ Minnesota-law religious-accommodation claims were not legally cognizable.

Americans with Disabilities Act claims

The court dismissed Count 3. For disability discrimination, the plaintiffs needed to plausibly allege that they had a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, were qualified for their jobs, and suffered an adverse employment action because of the disability. The court found no allegations about their health or any physical or mental impairment that substantially limited a major life activity, was recorded, or was regarded as an impairment. The court also noted that the plaintiffs alleged requests for religious accommodations, not disability accommodations.

The court also rejected the claims that the vaccination policy required an unlawful medical examination or disability-related inquiry. It held that a vaccine does not seek information about an employee’s health, and that asking about vaccination status is not likely to reveal information about a disability. None of the plaintiffs alleged that they personally underwent COVID-19 testing. The court added that, even if they had, the alleged testing would not constitute a prohibited medical examination on the facts presented.

Punitive damages and disposition

The court declined at this stage to strike the amended complaint’s references to punitive damages. Because the plaintiffs’ remaining claim was under Title VII, the court stated that punitive damages would require facts plausibly showing intentional discrimination with malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights. Olmsted Medical Center’s request to strike those references was denied without prejudice to renewing the request later in the case.

Judge Ann D. Montgomery ordered that Olmsted Medical Center’s motion to dismiss was granted. The court ordered that Counts 2 and 3 of the amended complaint were dismissed with prejudice. The Title VII claim was not dismissed by this order.