Blackwell v. Lehigh Valley Health Network

NICOLE BLACKWELL, Plaintiff, v. LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH NETWORK, Defendant.

CIVIL No. 5:22-cv-03360-JMG

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

January 23, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOHN M. GALLAGHER, United States District Court Judge.

I. OVERVIEW

Federal Courts have no province to question the validity, quality, or character of an individual's religious beliefs. Pursuit of religious liberty is among the oldest, most essential cornerstones of American democracy. In recognizing the right of an individual to assert a federal claim of religious discrimination against their former employer, it is this “very concept of ordered liberty” that requires courts to decide a “most delicate question”-not of whether a plaintiff's religious beliefs are reasonable, ethical, or well-founded-but only whether those beliefs are indeed religious. Africa v Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025, 1031 (3d Cir. 1981).

Because Plaintiff's Complaint fails to sufficiently plead that her sincerely held beliefs in conflict with Defendant's COVID-19 nasal swab testing requirement are religious in nature, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice.

II. BACKGROUND

a. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff, Nicole Blackwell, a nurse, filed a complaint alleging she was unlawfully terminated by her former employer, Defendant Lehigh Valley Health Network (“Complaint”). See Complaint (ECF No. 1). On October 19, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (“Motion”). See ECF No. 7. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition on November 2, 2022 (“Response”). See ECF No. 8. Defendant hired Plaintiff as a Registered Nurse in May 2011. Compl. at ¶ 1^[1]. On August 24, 2021, Defendant issued a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all staff. Id. at ¶ 3^[2]. On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a written religious accommodation request, stating:

I sincerely believe that injection with medical therapy which was derived from aborted fetal cells during the testing process [] and foreign [mRNA] is unholy and defiles the relationship I have with [G]od. I am a committed vegetarian and do not eat meat due to my spiritual beliefs. I cannot receive any treatment that contains derived cells and [mRNA] per my religious beliefs and philosophical beliefs.

Id. at ¶ 4^[3]; pg. 12. Plaintiff stated that her religious beliefs in opposition to COVID-19 vaccination are rooted in her stance as a “[l]ife long anti-abortion advocate,” her confirmation into the United Church of Christ at age 13, and her “[b]eliefs that many religious leaders are being pressured to turn away from [G]od and accept mRNA developed over the last several years.” Id. at pg. 13. On September 15, 2021, Defendant granted Plaintiff's religious accommodation request and offered her the opportunity to submit to “regular COVID-19 screening tests” in lieu of vaccination. Id. at ¶ 5. At that time, Defendant did not specify “the nature or modality” of the COVID-19 tests. Id. Plaintiff interpreted this “regular COVID-19 screening tests” requirement to mean “a ‘selfscreening' wherein she had to take her temperature at home and respond to a written questionnaire concerning any symptoms at home before reporting to work.” Id.

Around November 15, 2021, Defendant informed Plaintiff she was required to take biweekly COVID-19 tests via nasal swab in the presence of her manager. Id. at ¶ 8. Plaintiff alleges this amounted to a change in the terms of her religious accommodation. Id. Plaintiff objected to the nasal swab testing, advising Defendant that “observance of her religious beliefs forbids insertion of an unwanted foreign objection into her body.” Id. As an alternative, Plaintiff requested she be permitted to take a saliva test. Id.

Despite Plaintiff's offer to take a saliva test instead of nasal swab testing, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to engage in any interactive process concerning the same, and Defendant did not advise her to submit another religious accommodation request form. Id. On November 19, 2021, Defendant suspended Plaintiff without pay. Id.

On November 23, 2021, Plaintiff sent an e-mail to Defendant “express[ing] [her] beliefs” regarding “invasive” COVID-19 “testing.” Id. at ¶ 9; pg. 21. Plaintiff's e-mail states that if Defendant “wishes to protect staff and patients from possible infections, then it should be acknowledged that weekly [COVID-19] testing should be required for all staff” because “a growing body of peer-reviewed research is demonstrating that covid vaccinated people are just as likely to contract and spread this illness.” Id. Plaintiff's e-mail then cites to a medical journal article to support the proposition that “[t]here is increasing evidence that vaccinated individuals continue to have a relevant role in [COVID-19] transmission.” Id. Plaintiff's e-mail states that Plaintiff is “willing to abide by reasonable accommodations that do not discriminate against me for my religious beliefs.” Id.

On December 6, 2021 Plaintiff sent another email to Defendant asking whether “there has been any progress on the consideration of using saliva tests or religious exemptions for the nasal swab?” Id. at ¶ 10; pg. 23.

That same day, “[r]ather than receive a response to these lines of inquiry,” Plaintiff's employment was terminated by Defendant. Id. at ¶ 10.

Plaintiff also alleges that, in October 2021, Defendant issued an influenza vaccine mandate for all staff. Id. at ¶ 6. On October 26, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a written religious accommodation request for the influenza vaccine, indicating that “while she had received vaccines in the past, including the influenza vaccine, her religious beliefs changed since the last time she received an influenza vaccine and that for her to do so again would violate said beliefs.” Id. Specifically, Plaintiff's written religious accommodation request states:

[I] [h]ave [] religious beliefs over the past years that have changed numerous aspects of my life and impact what I can allow in my body because this impacts my relationship with [G]od. I have given up meat, supplements, medications. I have a bona fide religious and philosophical disagreement with flu vaccines, abortion, and consumption of meat.

Id. at pg. 16. On October 29, 2021, Defendant denied Plaintiff's accommodation request. Id. at ¶ 7. In so doing, Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to engage in any interactive process with Plaintiff. Id. “However,” the Complaint avers, “Defendant took no adverse employment action against [Plaintiff] immediately following its denial of the influenza vaccine religious accommodation request.” Id.

Plaintiff also claims, separately from her allegations of employment discrimination, that, “Plaintiff performed numerous hours of work over the final 2+ years of her employment from which Defendant benefitted, but for which she was uncompensated.” Id. at ¶ 2^[4]. Beginning on January 1, 2019, Plaintiff alleges Defendant began requiring nursing staff, including Plaintiff, to routinely perform uncompensated work. Id. First, Plaintiff alleges that upon arriving to work their shift, nursing staff were not permitted to “badge-in” for purposes of compensation calculations until either 7 a.m. or 7 p.m., “depending on whether they were working the day or night shift.” Id. Yet, Plaintiff alleges, Defendant required nursing staff to begin working their shifts prior to 7 a.m. or 7 p.m. anyway, resulting in staff having to perform uncompensated work. Id. Second, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant required nursing staff to “badge-out” for a mandatory 30-minute lunch break each shift. Id. In practice, however, Plaintiff continued to work during this 30-minute period of uncompensated time because “Plaintiff could not safely perform her professional responsibilities as a nurse if she had to take a 30-minute break without placing her patients at risk.” Id.

Plaintiff's Complaint brings four counts. Count One alleges Defendant's conduct constitutes unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Id. at pg. 6. Count Two brings a related state law claim, alleging Defendant's conduct constitutes unlawful employment discrimination in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Rights act. Id. at pg. 7.

Count Three alleges Defendant violated the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection law by compelling Plaintiff to perform uncompensated work before her shifts and during her lunch breaks. Id. at pg. 8.

Count Four of Plaintiff's Complaint for Unjust Enrichment alleges Defendant has “become unjustly enriched by improperly terminating Plaintiff to avoid its financial obligations to her, and for its failure to justly compensate her for all work she performed prior to her termination, and failing to disgorge said gains(s).” Id. at 9.

b. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety (“Motion”) on October 19, 2022. See ECF No. 7. Defendant contends this Court should dismiss Count One, Plaintiff's Title VII claim, because Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead that she holds a sincerely held religious belief conflicting with Defendant's required bi-weekly COVID-19 testing by way of a nasal swab. Id. at pg. 7-8. To the extent Plaintiff alleges religious discrimination related to the influenza vaccine, Defendant argues this too must be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to allege she sustained an adverse employment action for not receiving the influenza vaccine. Id. at pg. 12. Defendant contends this Court should dismiss Plaintiff's remaining claims: Counts Two, Three, and Four, because they are state law claims related to Plaintiff's Title VII claim. Id. at pg. 13.

Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion on November 2, 2022 (“Response”). See ...