As we enter our fifth (yes, fifth) year of COVID-19 and its different variants, more and more case law has come out addressing the steps taken by employers throughout the pandemic.  What the case law shows us is that the steps taken by most employers were legal and reasonable in light of the dangers we faced during the pandemic.  Such is the case in Colson v. Hennepin County, a recent decision to come out of Minnesota Federal District Court.

In that case, two employees of Hennepin County, and one employee of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (“DHS”) sued their employers over their testing mandates.  All three employees’ requests to not be tested on either religious grounds or due to a disability were denied.  The plaintiffs sued under Title VII, the ADA, and Section 1983.

In analyzing the claims, the court highlighted the requirements of a prima facie case of religious discrimination:

1. Plaintiffs must show they have a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement;
2. Plaintiffs must show they informed their employer of their belief; and
3. Plaintiffs must be disciplined for failing to comply with a conflicting requirement.

One of the plaintiffs received no discipline, as her request was denied, but she complied with the County’s testing requirements.  As such, her claim was dismissed.  Another employee argued that “each person has the God-given right to choose what he or she will inject into their body, or extract from their body, based on free will.”  The court found this opinion to be non-religious based, and unworthy of legal protection.  With that, her Title VII claim was dismissed.

In defense of their claims, the plaintiffs argued that both the vaccine mandates and weekly testing requirements of their employer violated the ADA’s prohibitions on medical examinations on disability inquiries.  In response to this, the court held that neither the reporting of vaccination status nor the testing requirement revealed information about employee disabilities, which is a requirement for proving that a medical examination or disability-related inquiry took place.  The ADA claims were then thrown out.

Finally, the plaintiffs alleged a Section 1983 claim for both violations of Title VII and the ADA.  The Court held that Section 1983 did not provide additional remedies for violations of either statute, and dismissed any 1983 claims related to Title VII and the ADA with prejudice.

It is now 2024, and we’re still dealing with COVID lawsuits.  This case was only recently heard at District Court, and could be appealed, based on these findings.  However, it’s good to know that employers were able to implement some reasonable standards for their employees to keep their workplaces safe.  We will keep our eyes on the courts to see if there are any new developments.  If you, or your organization, need assistance with implementing any new standards for your employees, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.