Shane v. Bio-Techne Corporation

Background

Ryan Shane, a virologist lead scientist hired by Bio-Techne Corporation in June 2021, generally worked alone in an office or laboratory and mainly communicated with coworkers by email or telephone. In October 2021, Bio-Techne announced that employees working at its United States offices or facilities had to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by November 1, 2021. The company’s announcement told employees with a legally permitted exemption to contact Human Resources.

Shane was not vaccinated and requested a religious exemption. He proposed measures including masking, gloves, social distancing, frequent handwashing, cleaning and disinfecting shared spaces and instruments, and weekly COVID-19 testing at his own expense. Bio-Techne denied the request, stating that no sufficiently safe and acceptable alternative to vaccination existed and that remaining unvaccinated would create safety risks, administrative burdens, and costs. After Shane chose to remain unvaccinated, Bio-Techne terminated his employment.

Shane sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. He alleged that Bio-Techne failed to accommodate his religion, discriminated against him because of his religious beliefs, made improper religious inquiries, and treated him as disabled because it allegedly viewed his unvaccinated status as evidence of a deficient immune system. The opinion also notes that Shane purported to represent a class, but the order ruled on Bio-Techne’s motion to dismiss the pleaded claims rather than deciding class certification.

Legal standard

At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly show a right to relief. The court may consider documents embraced by the complaint. It ordinarily does not resolve an affirmative defense—an argument that defeats liability even if the complaint’s allegations are true—when the defense is not clear from the face of the complaint.

Religious-accommodation claims

For a Title VII religious-accommodation claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that a sincere religious belief conflicted with an employment requirement, that the plaintiff informed the employer of the conflict, and that the plaintiff was discharged for not complying. The employer may defend by showing that it offered a reasonable accommodation or that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. The court described undue hardship as requiring more than a minimal cost and said that the claimed hardship must be real rather than speculative.

The parties did not dispute that Shane adequately alleged the basic elements of a religious-accommodation claim. The court therefore focused on Bio-Techne’s undue-hardship defense. Bio-Techne relied on increased COVID-19 exposure risks, possible effects on federal contracts, and added administrative and logistical burdens. Shane disputed those points and argued that the proposed safety measures could address the concerns.

The court held that these factual disputes could not be resolved on the pleadings. It declined to look outside the complaint to establish the claimed hardship and distinguished cases involving state-licensed health facilities that faced definite legal requirements and consequences. The court also noted Shane’s allegation that he worked primarily alone and had one scheduled weekly meeting with his supervisor. The court denied the motion as to Shane’s Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim in Count I.

The court held that the Minnesota Human Rights Act does not establish a duty to accommodate religion. It therefore ruled that Shane could not pursue a religious-accommodation claim under that statute and analyzed only the Title VII accommodation claim.

The court separately dismissed Shane’s allegations of direct religious discrimination. It found that he did not allege that Bio-Techne treated religious objectors differently from nonreligious employees who also objected to vaccination. That portion of Count I was dismissed with prejudice.

The court also dismissed Shane’s Minnesota Human Rights Act claim based on improper religious inquiries. The statute prohibits requests for information about religious beliefs before a person is employed, while Shane alleged that the requests occurred during his employment. The court also found his allegations concerning religious inquiries directed at job applicants too sparse and conclusory to state a claim.

“Regarded as” disability claims

The court dismissed Shane’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. A “regarded as” claim requires a plausible allegation that the employer took a prohibited action because it perceived the employee as having an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment. The court explained that an impairment includes a physiological disorder or condition affecting a body system, such as the immune system.

The court found that Bio-Techne’s awareness of Shane’s vaccination status did not, by itself, show that the company regarded him as disabled. The complaint did not plausibly allege that Bio-Techne perceived him as having a physiological disorder or condition; instead, it alleged that the company viewed him as noncompliant with its vaccination policy. Counts III and IV were dismissed with prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Bio-Techne’s motion to dismiss. It denied the motion as to the Title VII religious-accommodation claim in Count I. It granted the motion as to the remainder of Count I, and that remainder was dismissed with prejudice. It granted the motion as to Counts II, III, and IV, and those counts were dismissed with prejudice.