Maloney v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ANDREA L. MALONEY, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 23-78-RGA Vv. BAYHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Gary E. Junge (argued), SCHMITTINGER & RODRIGUEZ, P.A., Dover, DE, Attorney for Plaintiff. Stacy A. Scrivani, Alexis R. Gambale, STEVENS & LEE, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Lisa M. Scidurlo, STEVENS & LEE, P.C., King of Prussia, PA; Michael M. Greenfield (argued), Sasha A. Phillips, STEVENS & LEE, P.C., Philadelphia, PA; Theresa M. Zechman, STEVENS & LEE, P.C., Lancaster, PA, Attorneys for Defendant. Januarysdh, 2024 ] loka Globes, Before me is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (D.I. 14). I have considered the parties’ briefing. (D.I. 15, 16, 18). I heard oral argument on January 4, 2024 on a group of cases, including the present action, involving religious discrimination claims with regards to Defendant’s COVID-19 vaccine policy. (Hearing Tr.).! For the reasons set forth below, this motion is GRANTED in part and DISMISSED as moot in part. I. BACKGROUND This case stems from the COVID-19 pandemic and a healthcare provider’s efforts to respond to government vaccination policy. The Amended Complaint (D.I. 8) is the operative complaint and alleges the following facts. On August 12, 2021, Governor John Carney ordered all Delaware state health care employees either to become vaccinated for the COVID-19 virus by September 30, 2021 or to submit to regular testing for the COVID-19 virus. In November 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued a COVID-19 vaccine mandate requiring certain health care facilities, including Defendant, to ensure their staff members were all either vaccinated against COVID-19 or had obtained medical or religious exemptions to taking the vaccine. Pursuant to Defendant’s vaccination policy, employees seeking religious exemption requests were required to submit forms explaining the religious beliefs that formed their basis of their objection to the COVID-19 vaccine. (See D.I. 8-1, Ex. A). Employees could attach additional materials, such as letters from religious leaders, to support their exemption request. (d.). ' Citations to the transcript of the argument are in the format “Hearing Tr. at.” Employees who had their religious exemption requests rejected, and continued to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine, were terminated on February 28, 2022. Plaintiff was one of these employees. Plaintiff subsequently filed the present suit raising religious discrimination claims against Defendant under Title VII (Count I) and the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act (“DDEA”) (Count II). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 19, § 711. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs claims pursuant to FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (D.I. 14). II. LEGAL STANDARD A. Rule 12(b)(6) Rule 8 requires a complainant to provide “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. Civ. P. £92) Rule 12(b)(6) allows the accused party to bring a motion to dismiss the claim for failing to meet this standard. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion may be granted only if, accepting the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the complainant, a court concludes that those allegations “could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). The factual allegations do not have to be detailed, but they must provide more than labels, conclusions, or a “formulaic recitation” of the claim sleaentel Id. at 555 (“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level .. . on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).”). Moreover, there must be sufficient factual matter to state a facially plausible claim to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The facial plausibility standard is satisfied when the complaint’s factual content “allows the court to draw the reasqnable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Jd. (“Where a eonmplsint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). B. Failure to Accommodate Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on that employee’s religion. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The statute defines “religion” to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). To establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination under Title VII based on a failure to accommodate theory, an employee must show that (1) the employee “held a sincere religious belief that conflicted with a job requirement,” (2) the employee “informed their employer of the conflict,” and (3) the employee was “disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting requirement.” Fallon v. Mercy Cath. Med. Ctr. of Se. Pa., 877 F.3d 487, 490 (3d Cir. 2017). “Plaintiffs are not required to establish each element to survive a motion to dismiss; they must simply allege sufficient facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will uncover proof of their claims.” Finkbeiner v. Geisinger Clinic, 623 F. Supp. 3d 458, 465 (M.D. Pa. 2022) (citing Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 789 (3d Cir. 2016)). A district court’s inquiry into whether a plaintiff has plausibly plead the first prong of a prima facie religious discrimination claim is limited to determining whether the belief is (1) “sincerely held” and (2) religious within the plaintiff's “own scheme of things.” Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 339 (1970) (quoting United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185 (1965)). With respect to the first prong of this inquiry, “[w]hether a belief is sincerely held is a question of fact.” Geerlings v. Tredyffrin/Easttown Sch. Dist., 2021 WL 4399672, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2021) (citing Seeger, 380 U.S. at 185). With respect to the second prong, determining whether a plaintiff's beliefs are religious “presents a most delicate question.” Africa v. Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025, 1031 (3d Cir. 1981). is nonetheless incumbent upon the court to ensure that the alleged beliefs are rooted ina plaintiff's religion and are entitled to the broad protections guaranteed thereunder.” Aliano v. Twp. of Maplewood, 2023 WL 4398493, at *5 (D.N.J. July 7, 2023) (citing Fallon, 877 F.3d at 490). “The notion that all of life’s activities can be cloaked with religious significance” cannot transform an otherwise secular idea into a religious belief. Africa, 662 F.2d at 1035. “[T]he very concept of ordered liberty” precludes allowing any individual “a blanket privilege ‘to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests.” Africa, 662 F.2d at 1031 (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16 (1972)). The Third Circuit has adopted the three Africa factors to differentiate between views that are “religious in nature” and those that are “essentially political, sociological, or philosophical.” Fallon, 877 F.3d at 490-91 (quoting Seeger, 380 U.S. at 164); Africa, 662 F.2d at 1032. A judge must determine whether the beliefs in question (1) “address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters,” (2) “are comprehensive in nature,” and (3) “are accompanied by certain formal and external signs.” Fallon, 877 F.3d at 491 (quoting Ajrica, 662 F.2d at 1032) (cleaned up). The Africa court tackled the issue of analyzing non-traditional “religious” beliefs or practices by “look[ing] to familiar religions as models in order to ascertain, by comparison, whether the new set of ideas or beliefs is confronting the same concerns, or serving the same purposes, as unquestioned and accepted ‘religions.’” Africa, 662 F.2d at 1032 (quoting Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 205 (3d Cir. 1979) (Adams, J., concurring)); Fallon, 877 F.3d at 491 (describing the process as considering “how a belief may occupy a place parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious persons.”). The Africa factors ee. adopted as “three ‘useful indicia’ to determine the existence of a religion” pursuant to this “definition by analogy” approach. Africa, 662 F.2d at 1032. Their applicability to a person who professes a more widely recognized, “traditional” religion is a little less obvious.” However, because individuals cannot “cloak” all personal beliefs “with religious significance,” a court must still scrutinize whether a sincerely held belief, asserted by someone claiming a recognized religion, is sufficiently connected to their religion. Id. at 1035; see Griffin v. Massmchaxests Dep't of Revenue, 2023 WL 4685942, at *5 (D. Mass. July 20, 2023) (“[T]he issue in this case is not whether plaintiff has asserted a plausible claim that she has a personal religious faith... Plaintiff does not claim that she has suffered unlawful discrimination because she believes in God. Rather, she claims that she has suffered unlawful discrimination because she was required to comply with the COVID- 19 vaccination requirement. The critical question, therefore, is whether the complaint alleges sufficient plausible facts from which it could be reasonably inferred that being vaccinated against COVID-19 violates a tenet or principle of her religious belief.”). Of course, individuals may have religious beliefs which are not widely accepted within their religion. See Thomas v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 708 (1981) (“The guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect”); 29 C.F.R. § 1605.1 ("The fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs or = follows a recognized religion that already meets the “ Africa factors. (See D.I. 8 § the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong may not accept such belief will not determine whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee or prospective employee.”). Beliefs of this nature would, logically, fail to be sufficiently linked to the individual’s claimed religion and need to satisfy the Africa standard to qualify as religious beliefs. “(The DDEA] prohibits employment discrimination in statutory language nearly identical to Title VII.” Spady v. Wesley Coll., 2010 WL 3907357, at *3 n. 4 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2010); see DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 19, § 711(b). “[Courts] evaluate plaintiffs' DDEA claims under the same framework used to evaluate Title VII claims.” Spady, 2010 WL 3907357, at *3 n. 4 (citing Witcher v. Sodexho, Inc., 247 F. App'x 328, 329 n. 1 (3d Cir. 2007); Hyland v. Smyrna Sch. Dist., 608 F. App’x 79, 83 n. 5 (3d Cir. 2015) (instructing that “the standards under Title VII and the DDEA are generally the same”). C. Disparate Treatment To establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination under Title VII based on a disparate treatment theory, an employee must show that (1) the employee is “a member of a protected class,” (2) the employee “suffered an adverse employment action,” and (3) “nonmembers of the protected class were treated more favorably.” Abramson v. William Paterson Coll. of N.J., 260 F.3d 265, 281-82 (3d Cir. 2001). Depending on whether the plaintiff proceeds under a pretext or mixed-motive theory, they must ultimately prove that their protected status was either a “motivating” or a “determinative” factor in the employer’s challenged action. Connelly, 809 F.3d at 787-88. Il. DISCUSSION A. Failure to Accommodate At this stage of the case, only one issue exists—whether Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that the belief upon which her objection to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine was based is a religious belief. “[T]o adequately plead a ‘religious belief,’ a plaintiff must allege some facts regarding the nature of her belief system, as well as facts connecting her objection to that belief system.” Aliano, 2023 WL 4398493, at *5. “In other words, she must demonstrate that her objection arises from a subjective belief that is tied to her belief system which meets the Africa factors.” Id. (citing Africa, 662 F.2d at 1032; Fallon, 877 F.2d at 492—93 (concluding that the plaintiffs ‘“‘anti-vaccination beliefs are not religious” but providing “[t]his is not to say that anti- vaccination beliefs cannot be part of a broader religious faith; in some circumstances, they can, and in those circumstances, they are protected”’)); see also Brown v. Child.’s Hosp. of Phila., 794 F. App'x 226, 227 (3d Cir. 2020) (“[I]t is not sufficient merely to hold a ‘sincere opposition to vaccination’; rather, the individual must show that the ‘opposition to vaccination is a religious belief.’” (quoting Fallon, 877 F.3d at 490)); Griffin v. Massachusetts Dep't of Revenue, 2023 WL 4685942, at *5 (D. Mass. July 20, 2023); Ellison v. Inova Health Care Servs., 2023 WL 6038016, at *6 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2023) (A plaintiff should “provide[] sufficient allegations regarding [their] subjective personal beliefs, how those beliefs are related to [their] faith, and how those beliefs form the basis of [their] objection to the COVID-19 vaccination.”). Defendant argues that Plaintiffs objection to the vaccine stems from Plaintiff's personal moral code rather than from her religious beliefs.? (D.I. 15 at 7-15; D.I. 18 at S—10). 3 Defendant does not challenge Plaintiff's assertion that her Methodist faith meets the Africa test. Rather, Defendant argues the beliefs on which Plaintiff’s objection to the vaccine is based are secular beliefs based on Plaintiffs personal moral code, as opposed to religious beliefs that form Plaintiff identifies two categories of beliefs which she argues qualify as religious beliefs. (See D.I. 21 at 5 (placing Plaintiff under the “Created in the Image of God” and “Cannot Defile Body Because it is a Temple of the Holy Spirit” categories); ms 8 7 19). For the following reasons, I find Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead facts that show either of these categories are religious beliefs that form the basis of her objection to the bovinas vaccine. 1. “Body is a Temple” Belief Plaintiff’ s exemption request form states, “Christians have a duty to honor and care for the body God has given us as a temple of the Holy Spirit.” (DiI. 8-1, Ex. A, at 2 of 3 (citing Romans 12:1 (“Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is joa true and proper worship.”); | Corinthians 3:16 (“Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?”); 1 Corinthians 6:20 (“You were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”); 1 Corinthians 10:31 (“So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”))). Plaintiff maintains that it is her “God given responsibility to protect the integrity of [her] body and mind against anything unclean.” (/d.). Plaintiff asserts the “mandated vaccine has various additives that have the potential of altering my body and mind.” (id.). Plaintiff does not expand on the meaning of “altering on body and mind,” but this sentence suggests Plaintiff's refusal to take the vaccine is grounded in her understanding about the negative physical effects the vaccine might have on her bby a part of Plaintiff's Methodist faith. (See D.I. 15 at 7-15; D.I. 18 at 5—10). I therefore address only the questions at issue: whether Plaintiff has sufficiently connected her objection to the vaccine to a religious belief tied to her Methodist faith or whether the beliefs that form the basis of Plaintiffs objection would otherwise satisfy the Africa standard. Plaintiff's belief is “predicated fundamentally on her concerns with the safety of the vaccine.” Passarella v. Aspirus, Inc., 2023 WL 2455681, at *5 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 10, 2023). Plaintiff does “not articulate any religious belief that would prevent her from taking the vaccine if she believed it was safe.” Jd. “It takes more than a generalized aversion to harming the body to nudge a practice over the line from medical to religious.” Geerlings, 2021 WL 4399672, at see also Fallon, 877 F.3d at 492. “The notion that we should not harm our bodies is ubiquitous in religious teaching, but a concern that a treatment may do more harm than good is a medical belief, not a religious one.” Geerlings, 2021 WL 4399672, at *7 (quoting Fallon, 877 F.3d at 492) (cleaned up). At oral argument, Plaintiffs counsel took the position that “[h]arming my body is the religious belief” expressed by Plaintiff. (Hearing Tr. at 34:15—35:12 (“[I]f I believe [the vaccine] is going to cause long-term harm to my body, then my truly-held religious belief is that my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, and I should put nothing in my body that's going to harm it. That's religious belief.”)). Plaintiff's counsel effectively seeks to “cloak[] with religious significance” Plaintiffs concern that the vaccine will harm her body. Africa, 662 F.2d at 1035. The Third Circuit has already rejected such a position. /d. (explaining “[t]he notion that all of life’s activities can be cloaked with religious significance” cannot transform an otherwise secular idea into a religious belief). Several other district courts handling similar religious discrimination cases involving the COVID-19 vaccine have similarly found that such medical judgments do not qualify as religious beliefs. See, e.g., McKinley v. Princeton Univ., 2023 WL 8374486, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2023); Ellison, 2023 WL 6038016, at *5; Winans v. Cox Auto, Inc., 2023 WL 2975872, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2023); Ulrich v. Lancaster Gen. Health, 2023 WL 2939585, at 10 *5 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 13, 2023); Passarella, 2023 WL 2455681, at *5—7; Geerlings, 2021 WL 4399672, at *7; contra, Aliano, 2023 WL 4398493, at *8—9. Furthermore, Plaintiff's exemption form contains no information about what guideposts her religious beliefs provide for determining what materials are “unclean.” Nor does it explain how altering one’s body and mind is prohibited by her religious beliefs. Plaintiff instead focuses on her beliefs that a “ea is morally required to obey his or her conscience” and “to force or coerce a person to administer a substance into their body against their will is a violation of their personhood.” (D.I. 8-1, Ex. A, at 2 of 3 (citing Romans 9:1 (“I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost.”))), Her exemption form states, “My consci[ence] is governed by God and the mandate that is pated goes against any beliefs I have.” (/d.). She goes on to say, “Forced or coerced vaccination is also a violation of the dignity of the human person because freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are fundamental to human dignity.” (d.). Allowing Plaintiff the ability to object to anything that goes against her “conscience” or “will” would amount to the type of “blanket privilege” that ae not qualify as religious belief under Africa. See Lucky v. Landmark Med. of Mich., P.C., 2023 WL 7095085, at *4—7 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 26, 2023); Ellison, 2023 WL 6038016, at *5; Griffin, 2023 WL 4685942, at *6—7. “T]he very concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing’ [Plaintiff], or any other person, a blanket privilege ‘to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests.’” Jd. (citing Yoder, 406 U.S. at 215-16). Several other district courts handling similar religious discrimination cases involving the COVID-19 vaccine have similarly found that beliefs amounting to “blanket privileges” do not qualify as religious beliefs. See, e.g., Lucky, 2023 WL 7095085, at *4—7; Ellison, 2023 WL 6038016, at *5; Ulrich, 2023 WL 11 2939585, at *5; Blackwell v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, 2023 WL 362392, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2023); Finkbeiner, 623 F. Supp. 3d at 465. Plaintiff's counsel argued that whether a belief amounted to a “blanket privilege” presents an issue of sincerity that should be reserved for a jury. (Hearing Tr. at 33:3-14). The Africa court, however, indicated that a principal reason that courts engaged in the practice of making “uneasy differentiations” between religious and nonreligious beliefs was to prevent any individual from retaining a “blanket privilege ‘to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests.’” See Africa, 662 F.2d at 1031. I find it proper to consider this question when dealing with religiosity. As noted above, other district courts have likewise examined the “blanket privilege” question at the motion to dismiss stage. 2. “Image of God” Belief Plaintiff's exemption form states, “Humans are made in the image and likeness of God.” (D.I. 8-1, Ex. A, at 2 of 3 (citing Genesis 1:26 (“Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”)). Aside from this one sentence, Plaintiff gives no further information on this belief or how it is connected to her objection to the COVID-19 vaccine. To the extent that Plaintiff's “Image of God” belief is connected to statements already discussed in relation to her “Body is a Temple” belief, such as her assertions regarding the vaccine’s “potential for altering my body and mind” or the requirement to “obey . . . her conscience,” I adopt the corresponding rationale and conclusion from the above section. See supra Section III.A.1. For the reasons stated above, I find Plaintiff's Complaint does not plausibly allege that Plaintiffs objection to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine was based on a sincerely held religious 12 belief. At oral argument, Plaintiff's counsel agreed that, in wl event that I found a plaintiff had not adequately pled a religious belief, dismissal with prejudice was the proper path forward. (Hearing Tr. at 65:1-9). I will therefore dismiss Plaintiffs failure to accommodate claim with prejudice. B. Disparate Treatment Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead a religious discrimination claim under Title VII based on disparate treatment. (D.I. 15 at 15). Plaintiff states that she has not yet pled disparate treatment. (D.I. 16 at 20). I agree with Defendant that Plaintiffs assertion of “differential treatment” presents some confusion about whether a disparate treatment claim has been raised. (D.I. 18 at 10 n. 22). Nevertheless, since Plaintiff states she is not now pleading disparate treatment, I accept that she is not, and I will dismiss Defendant's argument as moot. C. Plaintiffs DDEA Claims A federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the claim “arise[s] out of a common nucleus of operative fact” with the over which the court has original jurisdiction. United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). A federal court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ...if... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . ...” 28U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Given my disposition of Plaintiff's Title VII claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining DDEA claims. I will dismiss Plaintiff's claims under Count II without prejudice. 13 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (D.I. 14) is GRANTED in part and DISMISSED as moot in part. An appropriate order will issue. 14