Elizabeth Combs; Thomas Johnston; Kimberly Herechberger; Michelle Boltz v. PeaceHealth

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon grants PeaceHealth’s consolidated motion for summary judgment and motion to strike in actions brought by former employees alleging religious discrimination under Title VII and Oregon law arising from COVID-19 vaccination requirements. The court also addresses Michelle Boltz’s disability-discrimination claims under the ADA and Oregon law. The court strikes portions of plaintiffs’ expert testimony concerning vaccine efficacy, alternative treatments, and natural immunity, and concludes that the plaintiffs’ claims fail under PeaceHealth’s undue-hardship defense.

Holdings

1. Patterson's testimony was inadmissible in its entirety under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 because her opinions were not based on sufficient facts or data, were not the product of reliable principles and methods, and were not reliably applied to the facts of the case.
2. PeaceHealth was entitled to summary judgment on its undue-hardship defense because allowing the plaintiffs to work in person while unvaccinated, even with proposed precautions, would have imposed substantial health and safety, operational, and financial costs in relation to PeaceHealth's healthcare business.
3. PeaceHealth was not required to discuss or implement infeasible alternatives, create new remote positions, restructure the plaintiffs' jobs, or reassign work where no reasonable accommodation was available without undue hardship.
4. PeaceHealth established an ADA and Oregon-law undue hardship defense to Boltz's disability-accommodation claim.
5. PeaceHealth established that Boltz posed a direct threat to the health or safety of patients and others that could not be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rose Walker-Patterson's proposed expert testimony was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.
2. Whether PeaceHealth established, on summary judgment, that accommodating the plaintiffs' religious objections to COVID-19 vaccination by allowing in-person work would impose an undue hardship under Title VII and Oregon law.
3. Whether PeaceHealth was required to provide additional individualized accommodations or create remote positions for plaintiffs despite its determination that in-person work by unvaccinated caregivers posed an unjustifiable risk.
4. Whether PeaceHealth established that accommodating Boltz's disability by allowing her to work in person while unvaccinated would impose an ADA undue hardship.
5. Whether Boltz, as an unvaccinated healthcare worker during the 2021 Delta-variant period, posed a direct threat that could not be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Disposition

dismissed