Bearbower v. Olmsted Medical Center

Background

Denise Bearbower, Anne Oakley, and Isaac Wangen were former employees of Olmsted Medical Center who provided direct, in-person patient care. Bearbower and Oakley were registered nurses, and Wangen was a radiologic technologist. Olmsted Medical Center adopted a COVID-19 vaccination policy in September 2021. Employees who did not comply could be suspended without pay or terminated, although the policy allowed applications for medical or religious exemptions.

The plaintiffs alleged that they had sincere religious objections to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, requested religious exemptions, and were denied. They alleged that Olmsted Medical Center later rejected all religious-exemption requests and discharged them in November 2021 because they were unvaccinated and had not received exemptions. They asserted claims under Title VII, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Olmsted Medical Center moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. It also asked the court to strike the complaint’s 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. According to the complaint, the vaccination policy applied to all employees and employees who failed to comply were discharged without regard to their reasons for noncompliance.

The court also held that the Minnesota Human Rights Act does not require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs. The court distinguished the Minnesota law from Title VII, which expressly includes a religious-accommodation requirement. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ Minnesota-law failure-to-accommodate claims were not legally cognizable.

Americans with Disabilities Act claims

The court dismissed Count 3. For the disability-discrimination allegations, it held that the complaint contained no facts showing that any plaintiff had, had a record of, or was regarded as having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limited a major life activity. The court also noted that the plaintiffs alleged requests for religious accommodations, not disability accommodations.

The court separately rejected the allegations concerning disability-related medical examinations and inquiries. It held that a vaccine requirement does not seek information about an employee’s health and is not an inquiry into whether the employee has a disability. Reporting vaccination status likewise was not likely to elicit information about a disability. None of the plaintiffs alleged that they personally underwent COVID-19 testing, and the court stated that such testing would not amount to a prohibited medical examination on the allegations presented.

Punitive damages and disposition

The court declined at this stage to strike the complaint’s references to punitive damages concerning the remaining Title VII claim. It denied Olmsted Medical Center’s request to strike those references without prejudice to renewing the request later in the proceedings.

Judge Ann D. Montgomery ordered that Olmsted Medical Center’s motion to dismiss was granted and that Counts 2 and 3 were dismissed with prejudice. The opinion states that Title VII was the plaintiffs’ only remaining claim and that Olmsted Medical Center had not moved to dismiss it at the pleading stage.