Ellison v. Inova Health Care Servs.

692 F.Supp.3d 548

Michael ELLISON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INOVA HEALTH CARE SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00132 (MSN/LRV)

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

Signed September 14, 2023

Joshua Hetzler, Michael B. Sylvester, Founding Freedoms Law Center, Richmond, VA, Charles Bennett Molster, III, The Law Offices of Charles B. Molster III PLLC, Washington, DC, Nicholas Nelson, Pro Hac Vice, Samuel Diehl, Pro Hac Vice, CrossCastle PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs Michael Ellison, Andrea Graham.

Michael B. Sylvester, Founding Freedoms Law Center, Richmond, VA, Nicholas Nelson, Pro Hac Vice, Samuel Diehl, Pro Hac Vice, CrossCastle PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, Charles Bennett Molster, III, The Law Offices of Charles B. Molster III PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff Arin Jenkins.

Nancy North Delogu, Littler Mendelson PC, Washington, DC, Alexander Paul Berg, Lauren Marie Bridenbaugh, Littler Mendelson, Tysons Corner, VA, for Defendants.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION¹

Michael S. Nachmanoff, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion to Strike Class Claims (Dkt. No. 37). For the reasons stated below, that motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, this case involves a hospital's efforts to respond to the rapidly changing circumstances of this public health crisis and how those efforts allegedly impacted its employees' exercise of their religious beliefs.

A. Factual Background

In July 2021, Defendant Inova Health announced that it would require all hospital employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Dkt. No. 23 ¶ 24 ("Am. Compl."). However, that mandate was not absolute: employees unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons or unwilling to be vaccinated for religious reasons could request either a permanent or temporary exemption from the otherwise mandatory policy. Id. ¶ 26. And, by and large, when an employee requested an exemption, it was granted within a few days. Id. ¶ 29.

But, in November 2021 (and in response to continuing pandemic-related concerns), the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid ("CMS") issued a mandate requiring all medical care providers and their employees to be vaccinated. Dkt. No. 38 at 3-4. The CMS mandate also outlined procedures for how covered healthcare providers were to evaluate exemption requests—procedures that were far more robust than the ones Inova implemented during the initial phases of its vaccination policy. Id. at 4. Inova was therefore required to update its policy, meaning that previously granted exemption requests needed to be re-evaluated. Id.

In February 2022, Inova announced that any employee who had previously been granted an exemption from the vaccine policy needed to reapply so that their request could be evaluated in light of the new policy. Id. at 4-5. Inova admitted that it was "going back on its word" but explained that it was obligated to do so under the CMS mandate, which required exemption requests to be scrutinized more closely. Id.; Am. Compl. ¶ 37.

After the implementation of the new policy, Plaintiffs Michael Ellison, Arin Jenkins, and Andrea Graham all reapplied for religious exemptions, asserting that various tenets of their Christian faith prevented them from receiving the vaccine. Am. Compl. at 13-14, 17-18, 22-23. Specifically, Ellison (a data-analyst) claimed that he could not receive the vaccine because he was required to treat his body as a temple of the Holy Spirit and was not to ingest anything that could potentially harm it. Id. ¶ 81. Ellison also holds a religious objection to abortion and, by extension, objected to the COVID-19 vaccines because they were developed using fetal cell lines. Id. ¶ 83. Next, Jenkins (a staff nurse) also stated that his faith required that he treat his body as a temple of God and that, as a result, he could take the vaccine only if, after prayer, he received approval from God. Id. ¶¶ 148, 152. Finally, after originally requesting a medical exemption based on her intention to become pregnant, Graham (an emergency room nurse) also asserted that her body was a temple, that her healthcare decisions were guided by prayer, and that she had not received authorization from God to take the vaccine. Id. ¶¶ 116, 119, 121. Graham also claimed that she was unable to comply with the policy because she had a religious objection to the use of fetal cell lines in the development of the vaccine. Id. ¶ 117. Each of the Plaintiffs' requests were denied. Id. ¶¶ 95, 128, 165.

B. Procedural History

Between March 2022 and December 2022, each of the Plaintiffs either resigned or were terminated for failure to comply with the hospital-wide vaccination policy. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 100, 134, 169. Each also filed their charges with the EEOC. Id. ¶¶ 101, 135, 171. And each received a right-to-sue letter. Id. ¶¶ 103, 137, 172.²

Then, in January 2023, Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint (Dkt. No. 1), which was later amended on April 4, 2023. See generally Dkt. No. 23 (Amended Complaint). That operative Complaint divides the claims between two proposed classes, the "Religious Discrimination Class" and the "Permanent Exemption Class." Am. Compl. ¶ 179.

The Religious Discrimination Class—represented by all Plaintiffs—alleges that Inova violated both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Virginia Human Rights Act ("VHRA") by, among other things, firing employees or refusing to hire applicants based on their religious exercise. See id. ¶¶ 201-56.

The Permanent Exemption Class—represented by Ellison and Jenkins—alleges that Inova created a binding contract when it granted "permanent" exemptions to induce each class member to continue working at Inova. See id. ¶¶ 257-64. In the alternative, the Permanent Exemption Class argues that Inova's promise of permanent exemptions is nonetheless enforceable because the promise created a quasi-contract that blocks the hospital's attempt to change course. Id. ¶ 262.

On April 18, 2023, Inova filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims or strike the class allegations. See Dkt. No. 37. Plaintiffs responded on May 2. Dkt. No. 40. Inova replied. Dkt. No. 41. The Court held oral argument on May 26. Dkt. No. 43. And today, the Court will grant Defendant's motion in part and deny it in part.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Motion to Dismiss. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a court may dismiss a complaint when the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which the court may grant relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Thus, to state a viable claim, a plaintiff's "factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," and the pleading must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" and "nudge [the] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A plaintiff must allege "more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955). Instead, the complaint must plead "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. A plaintiff's failure to allege an essential element of their claim warrants dismissal. See Comcast Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media, 589 U.S. 327, 140 S. Ct. 1009, 1019, 206 L.Ed.2d 356 (2020).

Motion to Strike. A court may strike class allegations from a pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(2), 23(d)(1)(D). A court should do so before discovery only "if the allegations are facially and inherently deficient." Knapp v. Zoetis Inc., No. 3:20-cv-191, 2021 WL 1225970, at *10 (E.D. Va. March 31, 2021).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs' Religious-Discrimination Claims

1. Title VII

Plaintiffs' principal argument is that Defendants, by rejecting requests for religious exemptions from the vaccine requirement, violated Title VII's requirement that an employee's religious beliefs be accommodated. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 201-28. With one exception, the Court disagrees.

Title VII makes it unlawful for covered employers "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges [of] employment, because of such individual's . . . religion." 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (1964 ed.). And although, as originally enacted, the statute did not spell out what it meant by discrimination "because of . . . religion," the EEOC has interpreted that provision to mean that employers were obligated "to make reasonable accommodations to the religious needs of employees" whenever that would not work an "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." See Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447, 456-58, 143 S.Ct. 2279, 216 L.Ed.2d 1041 (2023) (citing 29 CFR § 1605.1).³ Thus, to make out a plausible failure-to-accommodate claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must plead, and ultimately show, that: "(1) he or she has a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) he or she informed the employer of this belief; [and] (3) he or she was disciplined for failure to comply with the conflicting employment requirement." Chalmers v. Tulon Co. of Richmond, 101 F.3d 1012, 1019 (4th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted); see also EEOC v. Firestone Fibers & Textiles Co., 515 F.3d 307, 312 (4th Cir. 2008) (same) ("Firestone Fibers").⁴

The issue before the Court is whether Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded their prima facie case. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on the ground that Plaintiffs have not alleged the first element—that they hold a religious belief that conflicts with the vaccination...