Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Title VII religious-accommodation claims brought by Jacqueline Colson and Carrie Borgheiinck against Hennepin County concerning COVID-19 vaccination and testing policies. The court held that Borgheiinck failed to plausibly connect her objections to specific religious beliefs and that Colson failed to allege an adverse employment action. Judge Stras concurred in part and dissented in part, concluding that Colson sufficiently alleged an adverse employment action.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Borgheiinck plausibly pleaded a Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim by alleging a bona fide religious belief conflicting with the County's COVID-19 testing requirement.
- Whether Colson plausibly pleaded a Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim by alleging that she suffered discipline or an adverse employment action for refusing to comply with the conflicting requirement.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs leave to file motions for reconsideration based on intervening precedent.
Holdings
- Borgheiinck failed to state a plausible Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim because her complaint did not connect her objection to COVID-19 testing and vaccination with a specific religious belief that required, guided, or encouraged her refusal.
- Colson failed to state a plausible Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim because she did not allege that she was fired, suspended, demoted, or otherwise disciplined, nor did she identify a disadvantageous change to her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs leave to file motions for reconsideration because the cited intervening cases did not compel a different result.
Key quotations
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” (at 3)
“The problem is that her complaint fails to connect her objections to the County’s testing policy with her specific religious beliefs.” (at 4)
“But she did not plead that the time she spent testing at home was unpaid, and we will not “conjure up” that “unpled allegation[] to save [her] complaint.”” (at 5)
Factual background
Hennepin County required employees either to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or to undergo weekly testing, including at-home saliva testing for which the time spent testing could be treated as work time. Borgheiinck asserted a religious objection to vaccination and testing, received twelve weeks of unpaid leave as an accommodation, proposed remote-work alternatives, and was ultimately fired after the County revoked the accommodation. Colson asserted religious objections to vaccination and nasal-swab testing, received an accommodation permitting saliva testing, and alleged that the weekly saliva testing was time-consuming, nonprivate, and conducted outside work hours.
Procedural history
Colson and Borgheiinck sued Hennepin County alleging failure to accommodate religious and medical objections to the County's COVID-19 testing policies under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed all claims. The district court denied their requests for leave to file motions for reconsideration based on intervening precedent, and the plaintiffs appealed the orders concerning their Title VII claims.