Religious Institutions Update: January 2023

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Law Firm: Holland & Knight
• Subject Matter: Corporate/Commercial Law, Employment and HR, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Corporate and Company Law, Directors and Officers, Contract of Employment, Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Author: Mr Nathan Adams IV
• Published date: 10 January 2023

Key Cases

COVID-19

Vaccination Mandate Conforms with First Amendment

In Kane v. De Blasio, No. 21 Civ. 7863, 21 Civ. 8773, 2022 WL 3701183 (S.D. N.Y. Aug. 26, 2022), the district court ruled that New York City Department of Education employees who refused the COVID-19 vaccination for religious reasons failed to demonstrate that the city's COVID-19 vaccination mandate violated the Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause, Equal Protection Clause, substantive or procedural due process, or was unconstitutional under Title VII as applied to employees. The court ruled that the vaccine mandate is facially neutral and generally applicable. There is no evidence that it was adopted with religious animus; thus, the Free Exercise Clause is not violated. As relates to the Establishment Clause, the court cited a "long history of vaccination requirements in this country and in this Circuit." The court rejected the Equal Protection Clause claim because the plaintiffs did not point to similarly situated persons who have been treated differently. As relates to substantive due process, the court ruled that it has consistently recognized that the constitution embodies no fundamental right that in and of itself would render vaccine requirements unconstitutional or that it shocks the contemporary conscience. Concerning procedural due process, the court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to identify a protected liberty interest or a property interest in employment. As relates to the Title VII claim, the court noted that the circuit court and other courts have found that vaccination is a proper condition of employment. The court dismissed the complaint and denied injunctive relief.

Religious Accommodation

Defendant Failed to Accommodate Plaintiff's Religious Practices

In Suarez v. State, 517 P. 3d 474 (Wash. App. Div. 3, 2022), the court ruled that a fact issue precluded summary judgment on a claim under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) that the employer failed to accommodate the employee's religious practices and for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Employees allegedly called in as "unavailable" without further explanation so frequently that the school had a regular process for covering the shifts and negotiated mandatory overtime in the collective bargaining agreement. "If the school is accommodating unplanned leave for secular reasons other than sickness, it raises a question as to whether accommodating Suarez's request caused an undue hardship," the court stated in its opinion. The plaintiff, a certified nursing assistant (CNA), sued Yakima Valley School, a certified residential nursing facility serving disabled adults, contending that her work schedule conflicted with her practice of observing a weekly Sabbath and several religious festivals throughout the year. A "reasonable accommodation" of an employee's religious practices under WLAD is one that resolves conflict between the employee's work duties and religious beliefs and does not impact the employee's benefits or job status. It requires the employer to take active or affirmative steps to resolve a scheduling conflict if it can be done without undue hardship. "Undue hardship" arises in the event an action requires significant difficulty and expense to the employer. For example, requiring the school to accommodate Suarez's religious beliefs by violating the collective bargaining agreement would cause an undue hardship. Judge Robert Lawrence-Berrey dissented on the grounds that the request for accommodation was an undue burden; the school fulfilled its duty to reasonably accommodate by offering the plaintiff nine annual days off for her religious practices, in excess of the two annual days off permitted by the collective bargaining agreement, and sent a general email to employees about a job opening for a position with a schedule not conflicting with the plaintiff's religious practices.

Free Exercise

Washington Law Prohibiting Conversion Therapy Conforms with Free Exercise Clause

In Tingley v. Ferguson, 47 F. 4th 1055 (9th Cir. 2022), the court of appeals ruled that a Washington state law banning the practicing of conversion therapy on minors by licensed providers not acting under religious auspices was a neutral law of general applicability consistent with the Free Exercise Clause and was rationally related to the legitimate state interest of protecting the physical and psychological...