While we all hope that COVID-19 is finally a thing of the past and we are better prepared to respond to major health crises in the future, the lawsuits over government and employer actions taken in response to the pandemic continue.  With the slowdowns in the courts during the pandemic, and changing laws and regulations from the past three years, some cases are only in the beginning stages of the legal process.  Such was the case in the Minnesota case of Tipcke v. Olmsted Medical Center.

In this case, the plaintiffs were discharged employees of the medical center who refused to be vaccinated after the hospital introduced a new policy requiring its employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.  Employees were told they would be suspended or terminated unless they submitted proof of completed vaccination, had started the vaccination process, or submitted a declination form declining the vaccine.  Those who declined the vaccine were required to undergo weekly testing and to participate in mandatory education about COVID-19 and the vaccine.  There were exemptions allowed for employees with medical issues or religious beliefs that prevented them from being vaccinated.  However, even those who received an exemption were required to be tested and educated.

The named plaintiff in the case requested a religious exemption and was denied.  Her stated beliefs were that the vaccine was produced with or tested from aborted human babies, and that her “body is a temple and it must not be defiled by substances” such as a vaccine.  She was discharged in 2021 because she was not vaccinated and had not received an exemption.  She sued under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) for religious discrimination and failure to accommodate, and also for violations of the ADA.  Olmsted moved to dismiss the MHRA and ADA claims on the pleadings, stating the pleadings did not provide facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.  The motion was heard in U.S. District Court in Minnesota.

Under the framework for Tipcke’s religious discrimination claim, she needed to demonstrate she was a member of a protected class, she was qualified for her position, she was discharged, and she was replaced by a non-member of the protected class.  However, in her claim, she never alleged she was replaced by a non-member of her protected class.  The court found that she did not allege any facts to show she was treated differently from other employees because of her beliefs – as all employees of the hospital were required to adhere to the policy, and all employees who did not were terminated.

With regard to Tipcke’s MHRA religious discrimination claim, the court held that the MHRA does not impose an affirmative duty on employers to provide religious accommodations to its employees.  Only Title VII explicitly requires employers to provide religious accommodations to employees, and the MHRA requires reasonable accommodation only for employees with disabilities.

With regard to her disability discrimination allegations, the court found that Tipcke could not satisfy even the first element of a disability discrimination claim, as she failed to allege any facts “to plausibly show that she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA.”  She further failed to allege she sought and was denied an accommodation for any disability.

Finally, the court evaluated whether Olmsted performed an illegal medical examination or inquiry under the ADA.  The court held that Tipcke’s allegation that an illegal medical procedure was performed because “a vaccine is not a procedure that seeks information about Tipcke’s health and is not an inquiry into whether Tipcke has a disability,” and the inquiry about her vaccine status was not likely to illicit information regarding a disability.

With that, two of three counts against Olmsted were dismissed.

It must be noted that the court did not make a determination as to the plaintiff’s Title VII claims of failure to accommodate her religious beliefs.  Also, the decision did not address the employer’s decision to terminate Tipcke’s employment when there was allegedly an option for to be tested and educated about COVID-19 vaccines.  However, this is a good sign for employers in Minnesota, that their evenly-enforced policies are acceptable in the eyes of the courts, and can be applied in the future if and when a future health emergency takes place.

While the pandemic appears to be over, it is always important for employers to know their rights with regard to implementing policies to protect their workplace.  If you, or your organization have questions about implementing a new policy and its impact, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.