Balow v. Olmsted Medical Center

Background

Margaret Balow, Cheryl Brandeland-Bentley, Hilary Bricely, Dr. Jeremy Gibson, and Teresa Liffrig were former employees of Olmsted Medical Center (OMC) who provided in-person patient care. OMC adopted a policy requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or face suspension without pay or termination. The policy allowed employees to request medical or religious exemptions. Employees who received 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. Several alleged that the vaccines were produced with or tested with cells from aborted human babies, and that vaccination would violate their religious beliefs about abortion. Balow and Brandeland-Bentley also alleged that their bodies were temples of the Holy Spirit. Each plaintiff requested a religious exemption, and OMC denied each request. Four plaintiffs were discharged in November 2021, and Liffrig was discharged in January 2022, because they had not been vaccinated and had not received an exemption.

The amended complaint asserted religious-discrimination and religious-accommodation claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) in Count 2 and disability-related claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in Count 3. The plaintiffs also asserted a religious-discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Count 1. OMC moved to dismiss Counts 2 and 3 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. OMC also asked the court to strike the references to punitive damages.

MHRA claims

The court dismissed Count 2 for failure to state a claim under the MHRA. First, it held that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged religious discrimination. The plaintiffs 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 OMC’s vaccination policy applied to all employees and that the plaintiffs were terminated for refusing the vaccine.

Second, the court held that the MHRA does not require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs. The court contrasted the MHRA with Title VII, which expressly requires reasonable religious accommodation unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. The court explained that the MHRA expressly addresses reasonable accommodation for disability but does not include a comparable requirement for religion. It therefore concluded that the plaintiffs’ MHRA religious-accommodation claims were not legally cognizable.

ADA claims

The court dismissed Count 3 because the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege disability discrimination or an unlawful medical examination or disability-related inquiry.

For disability discrimination, the court held that the amended complaint contained no allegations about the plaintiffs’ health or any physical or mental impairment that substantially limited a major life activity. The court also noted that the plaintiffs alleged requests for religious accommodations, not requests for accommodations based on disabilities known to OMC.

For the medical-examination and disability-inquiry claims, the court held that requiring vaccination was not a procedure seeking information about the plaintiffs’ health and was not an inquiry into whether they had a disability. The court also held that asking for vaccination status was not likely to reveal information about a disability. None of the plaintiffs alleged that they actually underwent COVID-19 testing. The court further stated that, even if they had, the alleged testing would not constitute a prohibited medical examination under the ADA on the facts described.

Punitive damages and disposition

The court declined at this stage to strike the amended complaint’s references to punitive damages. It held that OMC could renew that request later and therefore denied the request to strike without prejudice.

The court granted OMC’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Counts 2 and 3 of the amended complaint with prejudice. Count 1, the plaintiffs’ Title VII claim, was not challenged by OMC at the pleading stage and was not dismissed by this order.