Ziegler v. 3M Company

Background

Elizabeth J. Ziegler and Nichole L. Dietel worked for 3M during the COVID-19 pandemic. In September 2021, 3M required employees to be vaccinated by December 8, 2021, while allowing requests for religious exemptions or accommodations. Both plaintiffs submitted religious exemption requests based on their Christian beliefs, and 3M denied both requests.

Ziegler alleged that 3M pressured her to get vaccinated, required her to wear a mask, and caused her emotional distress. Dietel made similar allegations. Neither plaintiff was fired, demoted, or disciplined for refusing vaccination. The plaintiffs later sued 3M under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, alleging religious harassment and a hostile work environment.

Administrative exhaustion

The court held that the plaintiffs did not exhaust the required administrative remedies for their harassment and hostile-work-environment claims. Before filing a Title VII employment-discrimination lawsuit, a person generally must first present the relevant allegations to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, allowing that agency an opportunity to investigate.

Ziegler’s charge alleged religious discrimination based on the denial of her exemption but did not mention harassment or a hostile work environment. Dietel’s charge alleged discrimination based on the requirement that she wear a mask but likewise did not allege harassment or a hostile work environment. The court therefore ruled that the plaintiffs’ charges did not cover the claims in their amended complaint.

Timeliness

The court separately held that the claims were untimely. Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the applicable filing period was one year. Under Title VII, the charge generally had to be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice.

Ziegler identified November 22, 2021, as the last date of discrimination, but filed her charge on December 13, 2022. Dietel identified January 5, 2022, as the end of the alleged discrimination, but filed her charge on January 20, 2023. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the alleged conduct was a continuing violation because neither the charges nor the amended complaint plausibly alleged continuing violations.

Failure to state a claim

The court also ruled that the amended complaint failed to state a claim. To plead religious harassment, the plaintiffs needed to allege, among other things, unwelcome harassment based on religion that affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment and was sufficiently severe and pervasive.

The court found that the plaintiffs provided no specific examples of harassment and did not allege that 3M referred to their religion or applied the vaccination policy unfairly because of their religion. The court also concluded that pressure to vaccinate, denial of exemption requests, mask requirements, and anxiety about possible job loss did not amount to the severe and pervasive conduct required, particularly because the plaintiffs did not allege adverse employment consequences and acknowledged that they were not disciplined.

Disposition

Judge David S. Doty granted 3M Company’s motion to dismiss. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to file another amended complaint, finding that additional pleading would not produce a different result. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and ordered judgment entered accordingly.