Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied Southern California Permanente Medical Group’s motion to dismiss Sharry Ashcroft’s third amended complaint. The court held that Ashcroft sufficiently alleged religious beliefs conflicting with the employer’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement, a failure to accommodate under Title VII and California’s FEHA, and discriminatory termination. The court also allowed her derivative wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim to proceed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged a bona fide religious belief that conflicted with Defendant's COVID-19 vaccination requirement.
- Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged that she informed Defendant of the religious belief and conflict sufficiently to state Title VII and FEHA failure-to-accommodate claims.
- Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged that Defendant subjected her to discriminatory treatment because of her inability to comply with the vaccination requirement.
- Whether Plaintiff's wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim could proceed as derivative of her Title VII and FEHA claims.
- Whether the court should take judicial notice of a tentative state-court decision and, if so, for what purpose.
Holdings
- Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a bona fide religious belief at the pleading stage. Her allegations connected her opposition to vaccination with sincerely held Christian beliefs, sacredness of the body and blood, biblical teachings, and a broader religious belief system, rather than merely a scientific or moral objection to a single vaccine.
- Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that she informed Defendant of her religious beliefs and the conflict between those beliefs and the vaccination requirement.
- Plaintiff plausibly alleged the third element of her failure-to-accommodate claims because Defendant denied her exemption, placed her on unpaid leave, and terminated her for failing to comply with the vaccination requirement.
- Plaintiff's wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim could proceed as a derivative claim because her Title VII and FEHA claims supplied a public-policy basis.
- The court granted Plaintiff's request for judicial notice of the existence of a tentative state-court decision as an official government act and court record, but did not take judicial notice of the decision's correctness.
Key quotations
“Thus, at this stage in proceedings, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a bona fide religious belief.” (at 10)
“This evinces a clear conflict between Plaintiff’s religious beliefs, which prohibit vaccination, and Defendant’s vaccine requirement, which mandates it.” (at 12)
“As maintains claims both for violation of FEHA and Title VU, Plaintiff's wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim may proceed as a derivative.” (at 13)
Factual background
Defendant, a private health care organization, employed Plaintiff as an office assistant and required employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccination or obtain a medical or religious exemption. Plaintiff, who identified as a Christian, requested a religious exemption based on beliefs that her body was a temple of the Holy Spirit, that her blood was sacred, and that vaccines violated her religious beliefs. Defendant provisionally approved the request, later sought additional information, denied the exemption, placed Plaintiff on unpaid leave, and terminated her employment for failing to comply with the vaccination policy.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed her initial complaint on January 5, 2024. After granting in part an earlier motion to dismiss, the court permitted amendment; the court later dismissed the second amended complaint in its entirety with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed the operative third amended complaint on February 14, 2025, and Defendant moved to dismiss it. The court denied the motion as to all three remaining causes of action and ordered Defendant to answer within fourteen days.