A female employee refuses to get an employer-mandated flu shot, saying the use of eggs in the preparation of the vaccine run counter to her beliefs as a vegan. After she was fired, she sued for religious discrimination. Did she win?

Read the dramatized version of this real-life case and see if you can determine the outcome.

The scene

Company attorney Eric Bressler stepped into HR manager Roger Podd’s office. “How’s it going?” Eric asked.

“Pretty good, Eric. We’re more than halfway through flu season, and we haven’t had any absence issues. Guess making the shots mandatory was the right move, huh?” Roger asked.

“I’m not so sure, Roger,” Eric said. “Rachel Amaro just filed a lawsuit against us because of our flu shot policy. Can you fill me in?”

“You’ve got to be kidding. What’s she suing for?” Roger asked.

“Religious discrimination,” Eric replied.

“That’s ridiculous,” Roger said. “Here’s the deal: When we rolled out the new policy, Rachel flat-out refused to get a shot, even when we told her it was a safety issue and warned her there would be consequences if she didn’t.”

“And her argument?” Eric asked.

“Rachel claimed because the flu vaccine contained chicken eggs, as a vegan, she couldn’t get it,” Roger said. “She even handed me some essay on ‘religious’ justifications for veganism and asked for a religious accommodation in the form of not having to get the shot – like we’d done in the past.

“This year, though, we really wanted everybody to get vaccinated. So we refused. She didn’t get the shot, so we fired her.”

Rachel sued Roger’s company for religious discrimination, and Roger’s company tried to get the suit dismissed. Who won?

The decision

The company lost. A court refused to dismiss Rachel’s lawsuit and ruled that the case could go to trial.

The company argued that it had legitimate safety reasons for requiring employees to get a flu vaccine.

But the court acknowledged – partly because of the essay materials that were submitted – that it was possible for Rachel’s veganism to be a “moral or ethical belief” that could be adhered to as strictly as a religious belief.

And because the EEOC has said that employers may have to make reasonable accommodations for a person’s religious beliefs under Title VII, the company must prove that Rachel’s veganism was not actually a “religious belief” or at least that it wasn’t sincerely held, the court said.

That means Roger’s company has to choose between what’s behind Door No. 1 – a long, drawn-out trial – or Door No. 2 – an expensive settlement. A lose-lose.

Analysis: Give all requests proper consideration

Requiring workers to get a flu shot can run afoul of laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and get firms in trouble with the EEOC. So while it seems like a good idea in theory, it can get sticky in practice.

True, some businesses (like healthcare companies) may have legitimate reasons for such a requirement. Where the company in this case went wrong: It never attempted to engage in the “interactive process” to see about a reasonable accommodation for Rachel’s beliefs. A big mistake, especially because it allegedly allowed staffers to go without the shot in the past.

The case is Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

The post Was not accommodating vegan’s request religious discrimination? appeared first on HR Morning.

Resources
Post Your Resume to 65+ Job Sites
Resume Service

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post