Colson v. Hennepin County

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Human Services required employees to either receive a COVID-19 vaccination or obtain a medical or religious exemption. Employees with exemptions had to participate in weekly COVID-19 testing and could face discipline, including termination, for failing to comply.

Jacqueline Colson and Carrie Borgheiinck were employed by Hennepin County, and Shelly Bratz was employed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. All three plaintiffs requested and received religious exemptions from vaccination. Colson’s request to avoid weekly testing was denied by Hennepin County. Borgheiinck’s request was initially granted, but Hennepin County later revoked her unpaid leave after determining that continued accommodation would cause an undue hardship. Borgheiinck refused weekly testing and was eventually terminated. The Minnesota Department of Human Services denied Bratz’s request to avoid weekly testing.

Hennepin County moved to dismiss. Because the Minnesota Department of Human Services did not join the motion, the order addressed only Colson’s and Borgheiinck’s claims against Hennepin County.

Title VII claims

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on religion and generally requires reasonable accommodation of an employee’s religious practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. To state a basic failure-to-accommodate claim, a plaintiff had to allege a sincere religious belief that conflicted with a work requirement, notice of that belief to the employer, and discipline for failing to follow the conflicting requirement.

The court dismissed Colson’s Title VII claim because she did not allege that Hennepin County disciplined her for failing to comply with weekly testing.

The court dismissed Borgheiinck’s Title VII claim because she did not allege a bona fide religious belief that conflicted with an employment requirement. The complaint described her belief that each person has a God-given right to choose what to put into or remove from the body. The court concluded that her objections appeared primarily based on scientific, personal, and medical concerns that the vaccine was ineffective, unhealthy, or unsafe, rather than on a religious belief.

Americans with Disabilities Act claims

The plaintiffs alleged that Hennepin County’s vaccination-status reporting and weekly testing requirements violated the Americans with Disabilities Act’s restrictions on medical examinations and disability-related inquiries. The Act generally bars employers from requiring such examinations or inquiries unless they are job-related and consistent with business necessity.

The court held that the vaccination-status and weekly testing requirements did not violate those provisions because neither requirement would elicit information about a disability. The court therefore dismissed Colson’s and Borgheiinck’s disability claims.

Section 1983 claims

Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights by state or local actors, but it does not itself create a substantive right. The court explained that Section 1983 cannot provide an additional remedy for rights created by Title VII or the Americans with Disabilities Act because those statutes provide their own remedial schemes.

To the extent Colson and Borgheiinck based their Section 1983 claims on Title VII or the Americans with Disabilities Act, the claims failed because Section 1983 could not provide an additional remedy. To the extent they relied on the United States Constitution, the complaint did not identify a constitutional violation. The court dismissed their Section 1983 claims.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright granted Hennepin County’s motion to dismiss. The claims of Jacqueline Colson and Carrie Borgheiinck against Hennepin County were dismissed with prejudice. The order did not address Shelly Bratz’s claims against the Minnesota Department of Human Services.