Summary
This Eighth Circuit opinion reviews a district court's dismissal of an employee's claims alleging religious discrimination and wrongful discharge after she was forced to choose between complying with a COVID-19 vaccine and testing mandate or losing accrued benefits. The court reversed the dismissal of her Title VII and Minnesota Human Rights Act claims, finding she plausibly alleged sincerely held religious beliefs conflicting with the mandate and suffered an adverse employment action through constructive discharge. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of her claim under Minnesota’s Refusal of Treatment statute, holding that it does not create a private right of action.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Brokken sufficiently pleaded a religious discrimination claim under Title VII.
- Whether Brokken sufficiently pleaded a religious discrimination claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
- Whether Minnesota’s Refusal of Treatment statute creates a private right of action.
Holdings
- The district court’s dismissal is reversed; the complaint plausibly alleges a Title VII disparate‑treatment claim because Brokken identified sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with the County’s vaccination and testing requirements and alleged an adverse employment action.
- The district court’s dismissal is reversed; the MHRA provides a cause of action for religious discrimination and failure to accommodate, so Brokken’s claim plausibly states a claim.
- The district court’s dismissal is affirmed; § 12.39 does not create a private civil cause of action, only criminal penalties.
Key quotations
“To survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must ‘adequately identify religious views they believe to conflict with’ the employer’s policy.” (at 1113)
“An adverse employment action is a disadvantageous change to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” (at 1114)
“A plaintiff must show: (1) ‘he was discriminated against by his employer to the point where a reasonable person in his position would have felt compelled to resign,’ and (2) ‘he actually resigned.’” (at 1114)
Factual background
Hennepin County required all employees to be vaccinated against COVID‑19 or undergo weekly testing. Brokken sought a religious exemption; the County initially accommodated her but later revised its policy, threatening termination and loss of accrued vacation, sick, and comp time if she refused testing. Brokken retired under duress, alleging religious discrimination and wrongful discharge.
Procedural history
The district court dismissed all of Brokken's claims for failure to state a claim. The Eighth Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo under 28 U.S.C. §1291.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.