Aronson v. Olmsted Med. Ctr.

668 F.Supp.3d 843

Elizabeth ARONSON, Plaintiff, v. OLMSTED MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant.

Civil No. 22-1594 ADM/JFD

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Signed April 4, 2023

Gregory M. Erickson, Esq., and Vincent J. Fahnlander, Esq., Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff.

Ashley R. Thronson, Esq., and Marielos Cabrera, Esq., Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ANN D. MONTGOMERY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 4, 2023, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on Defendant Olmsted Medical Center's ("OMC") Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 15]. Plaintiff Elizabeth Aronson ("Aronson") is a former employee of OMC and was discharged for refusing to become vaccinated against COVID-19. Aronson asserts claims for religious discrimination and failure to accommodate religious beliefs under the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), Minn. Stat. § 303A.01 et seq. (Count 2), and for alleged violations of the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (Count 3).¹ OMC moves to dismiss the MHRA and ADA claims. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted, and Counts 2 and 3 of the Amended Complaint [Docket No. 14] are dismissed.

II. BACKGROUND

OMC is a nonprofit health system that operates medical facilities in Minnesota. Am. Compl. ¶ 9. Aronson was formerly employed by OMC as a diagnostic medical sonographer. Id. ¶ 8.

In September 2021, OMC adopted a policy requiring its employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Id. ¶ 12. The policy stated that employees would be suspended without pay or terminated from employment unless, by October 15, 2021, they: (1) submitted proof of completed vaccination; (2) had started the vaccination process; or (3) submitted a declination form declining the vaccine. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. The policy further provided that employees submitting a declination form would be required to undergo weekly testing for COVID-19 and to participate in mandatory education about COVID-19 and the vaccine. Id. ¶¶ 13-14.

The policy permitted employees to apply for a medical or religious exemption to the vaccine requirement. Id. ¶ 18. OMC created a religious exemption review team comprised of staff from human resources and others to review declinations based on religious reasons. Id. ¶ 20. OMC also created a medical exemption team of OMC physicians to review each declination form for medical reasons. Id. ¶ 22. The policy stated that employees receiving a medical or religious exemption would still be required to complete mandatory education regarding COVID-19 and the vaccine, and to submit to weekly testing at OMC's COVID-19 testing site. Id. ¶ 25.

Aronson alleges that as of October 15, 2021, "over half of those attempting to obtain a religious or medical exemption were pressured into taking the COVID-19 vaccine, and some chose to quit working for [OMC]." Id. ¶ 27. Approximately 10% of those who declined the vaccine were approved for religious or medical exemptions. Id. Aronson alleges that OMC "granted a small number of religious exemptions to very high ranking employees who [OMC] determined were not replaceable." Id. ¶ 39.

In late October 2021, OMC allegedly began rejecting all requests for religious exemption, claiming that granting any religious exemption would cause undue burden. Id. ¶ 29. Aronson alleges that the vaccine policy "evolved into a 'vaccinate or be terminated' policy." Id.

Aronson alleges that she has sincerely held religious beliefs that prevent her from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Id. ¶ 31. Specifically, Aronson alleges that the COVID-19 vaccines were produced with or tested with cells from aborted human babies, and that receiving the vaccine "violates the 6^th Commandment, Thou Shall Not Kill." Id. Aronson also believes that her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and must not be defiled by substances such as the vaccine. Id.

Aronson requested a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement and was denied. Id. ¶ 30. OMC did not provide Aronson with the criteria it used in evaluating her request for a religious exemption and did not provide specific information about the reasons for denying the request. Id.

In November 2021, Aronson was discharged from her employment with OMC because she had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 and had not received a religious or medical exemption. Id. ¶¶ 1, 35. Aronson filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and was issued right to sue letters. Id. ¶ 35.

Aronson filed this lawsuit on June 16, 2022. She asserts claims against OMC for religious discrimination and failure to accommodate religious beliefs under Title VII (Count 1), religious discrimination and failure to accommodate religious beliefs under the MHRA (Count 2), and violations of the ADA (Count 3). Aronson seeks both money damages (including punitive damages) and restoration to her former position at OMC.

OMC moves to dismiss Counts 2 and 3 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). OMC also asks the Court to strike the Amended Complaint's references to punitive damages as insufficiently pled.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Dismiss Standard

Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In considering a motion to dismiss, the pleadings are construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and the facts alleged in the complaint must be taken as true. Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1994); Ossman v. Diana Corp., 825 F. Supp. 870, 879-80 (D. Minn. 1993). Any ambiguities concerning the sufficiency of the claims must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Ossman, 825 F. Supp. at 880.

When deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court may consider "the pleadings themselves, materials embraced by the pleadings, exhibits attached to the pleadings, and matters of public record." Illig v. Union Elec. Co., 652 F.3d 971, 976 (8th Cir. 2011). Materials embraced by the pleadings include "documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading." Kushner v. Beverly Enters., Inc., 317 F.3d 820, 831 (8th Cir. 2003).

A pleading must relate sufficient "facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Although detailed factual allegations are not required, "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not 'show[n]'—'that the pleader is entitled to relief.' " Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)) (alteration in original).

B. Religious Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate under the MHRA (Count 2)

OMC argues Aronson's MHRA claim must be dismissed because: 1) the Amended Complaint does not allege facts from which to draw a reasonable inference of religious discrimination; and 2) the MHRA does not require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for their employees' religious beliefs.

1. No Religious Discrimination

The MHRA makes it an unfair employment practice for an employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because of the employee's religion. Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 2(2)-(3). A plaintiff may prove discriminatory intent by direct evidence or by using circumstantial evidence under the three-part burden-shifting framework in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Hoover v. Norwest Priv. Mortg. Banking, 632 N.W.2d 534, 542 (Minn. 2001).

Under this framework, a plaintiff presents a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge by showing that they: "(1) are a member of a protected class; (2) were qualified for the position from which they were discharged; (3) were discharged; and (4) were replaced by a non-member of the protected class." Eilefson v. Park Nicollet Health Servs., No. A22-0189, 2022 WL 3149256, at *4 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2022) (citing Friend v. Gopher Co., 771 N.W.2d 33, 38 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)) (citing in turn Hoover, 632 N.W.2d at 542). The fourth element can also be met if "circumstances exist that give rise to an inference of discrimination." Id. at *4.

Here, Aronson does do not allege that she was were replaced by a non-member of her "protected class." Nor does Aronson allege facts or circumstances that give rise to a plausible inference of religious discrimination. Indeed, Aronson does not allege any facts to show that she was treated differently from other employees because of her religious beliefs. To the contrary, Aronson alleges that she was discharged for failing to comply with an employment policy that applied to all employees. Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges that OMC "implemented its Vaccine Mandate for all of its employees," Am. Compl. ¶ 12, and that OMC employees who failed to comply with the policy were discharged without regard to their reason for not complying. Id. ¶¶ 13-16. The Amended Complaint also alleges that OMC "terminated the Plaintiff Aronson's employment based solely on Plaintiff Aronson's refusal to take the Covid-19...