Jenkins v. Valley Health Sys.

1

ROD JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-00053

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Harrisonburg Division

June 28, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ELIZABETH K. DILLON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Rod Jenkins brought this action against Valley Health System (Valley Health) alleging that Valley Health failed to accommodate his religious beliefs and retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3(a). Pending before the court is Valley Health's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 5.) After briefing (Dkt Nos. 6, 10, 11) and oral argument, Jenkins also submitted a supplemental brief, which the court has considered. (Dkt. No 20.) The motion is ripe for resolution. For the reasons stated herein, the court will grant Valley Health's motion to dismiss with prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

Valley Health hired Jenkins as a registered nurse in December 2019. (Compl. ¶ 9, Dkt. No. 1.) On July 19, 2021, and in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Valley Health enacted a policy that required its employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. (Id. ¶ 10.) The policy required that employees receive their first dose before October 1, and it included a deadline of August 16 to submit requests for “the possibility” of medical or religious exemptions. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12.) Jenkins submitted an affidavit to Valley Health's Human Resources department in which he requested a religious exemption to the vaccination policy. (Id. ¶ 17.) Jenkins later re-submitted a notarized copy of his affidavit on July 30, wherein he stated that he was “a member of a recognized religious organization, and that the immunizations required by Valley Health are contrary to my religious tenets or practices.” (Id. ¶ 19.) By this time, Valley Health implemented a standardized exemption request form and required Jenkins to re-submit his request on the standard form. (Id. ¶ 17.) Jenkins did so on August 10. (Id. ¶ 18.)

On the new form, Jenkins himself completed the portion “to be completed by a Religious Leader/Requested Individual.” (Id. ¶¶ 21-22.) Jenkins simply stated that he “Do[es] Not Agree with Fetal Cell Therapy,” but he neglected to detail his religious beliefs on the accommodation request. (Id. ¶¶ 24-25.)

On August 18, Valley Health denied Jenkins's request for a religious accommodation to the vaccination policy and cited to its “consistent, fair, and impartial process” to reach this decision. (Id. ¶ 26.) Jenkins claimed Valley Health did not indicate why his request was denied nor did any hospital representative reach out to explain the rationale. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29.) Similarly, before denying his request, Valley Health did not ask Jenkins to provide further information or clarification about how his beliefs conflicted with Valley Health's vaccine mandate. (Id. ¶ 30.)

Over three months later, on November 23, Jenkins wrote a letter to Human Resources to express his desire to remain employed at Valley Health “with a reasonable accommodation” even though his prior accommodation request had been denied. (Id. ¶ 31.) In the same letter, he noted his fears that “the shot would cause personal harm” and Human Resources' previous advice that “Valley Health will not accept medical exemptions.” (Id.) Valley Health responded three days later, on November 26, to clarify that Valley Health offered both medical and religious exemptions but Jenkins was not approved for either. (Id. ¶ 34.) The email further notified Jenkins that his employment would be terminated, effective December 11, if he chose not to receive the vaccine. (Id. ¶ 35.)

Jenkins did not receive the vaccine, and Valley Health fired him on December 11, 2021. (Id. ¶ 42.) Jenkins filed a complaint against Valley Health with both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Virginia Attorney General's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) on April 11, 2022. (Id. ¶ 43.) Jenkins received EEOC's Notice of a Right to Sue on May 25, 2023. (Id. ¶ 44.)

Jenkins filed suit in this court. In his complaint, Jenkins provided significant additional details tying his vaccine objections to his faith. (Id.) Further, he asserted that as part of his Christian faith, he believed “abortion is morally wrong and that to knowingly take a vaccine that was tainted in any way with aborted fetal cells would be a sin.” (Id. ¶ 24.) Jenkins further believed “his body is God's temple” and that forcing an unapproved vaccine on individuals was a violation of the First Amendment. (Id. ¶ 25, n.1.) While Jenkins acknowledged that he did not detail his religious beliefs in his exemption request forms, he averred that “clearly his religious beliefs were made clear to the reader” of the standardized form. (Id. ¶ 25.) His complaint contains two claims alleging violations of Title VII. In Count I, Jenkins alleges that Valley Health failed to accommodate his religious beliefs. In Count II, he alleges that Valley Health retaliated against him for his religious beliefs. Defendant Valley Health moves to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, arguing that Jenkins fails to state a claim.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the plaintiff's allegations must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This standard “requires the plaintiff to articulate facts, when accepted as true, that ‘show' that the plaintiff has stated a claim entitling him to relief, i.e., the ‘plausibility of entitlement to relief.'” Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). The plausibility standard requires more than “a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The court must accept all well-pled allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009). However, pleadings which are conclusory “are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

The Fourth Circuit has made clear that the pleading standards established in Twombly and Iqbal apply to claims of discrimination. Woods v. City of Greensboro, 855 F.3d 639, 647-48 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing McCleary-Evans v. Md. Dep't of Transp., 780 F.3d 582, 583-85 (4th Cir. 2015)). Although a plaintiff is “not required to ‘plead facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss,'” he is “nonetheless ‘required to allege facts to satisfy the elements of a cause of action created by [the relevant] statute in compliance with Iqbal.” Id. at 648 (quoting McCleary-Evans, 780 F.3d at 585) (alteration in original). Thus, the question at this stage of the proceedings is whether the plaintiff “has offered sufficient factual allegations to support a plausible claim” under Title VII. Id.

B. Jenkins Has Not Adequately Stated a Claim for Failure to Accommodate Religious Beliefs Under Title VII.

To state a prima facie case of failure to accommodate religious beliefs under Title VII, a plaintiff must establish that (1) he has a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement, (2) he informed the employer of this belief, and (3) he was disciplined for failure to comply with the conflicting employment requirement. Chalmers v. Tulon Co., 101 F.3d 1012, 1019 (4th Cir. 1996). Moreover, Title VII defines “religion” as “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's . . . religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). Though a religious belief need not be “acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others” under Title VII, the plaintiff must make an “assertion of sincere religious belief.”^[2] Keene v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 4:22-cv-01587, 2023 WL 3451687, at *2 (9th Cir. May 15, 2023) (citing Thomas v. Rev. Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981)).

Notably, Valley Health made its decision to deny Jenkins's religious accommodation based on his exemption requests and did not have the benefit of his complaint. While Jenkins alleges that he submitted multiple statements and religious accommodation requests, it is not clear whether Valley Health used any of the documents other than the final, official form in evaluating his request.^[3](Compl. ¶¶ 20-24.) The form permitted attachments for additional information, but Jenkins neither attached his previously submitted affidavit nor provided any surplus information with the form. (Def. Ex. 1, Dkt. No. 11-1.) Further, the form contained a standard, typed section stating, “It is a tenet or practice of my church, religious organization, or religious beliefs not to receive the Covid-19 vaccination.” (Id.) Jenkins signed his name after this typed statement and hand-wrote a few sentences related to his political and medical beliefs. (Id.)

The court looks primarily to Jenkins's final request to determine if his stated beliefs are religious in nature sufficient to require religious accommodation. See Aliano v. Twp. of Maplewood No. 22-cv-5598, 2023 WL 4398493, at *11 (D.N.J. July 7, 2023). Even if the court considered Jenkins's prior exemption requests, it would reach the same result. In his prior requests, including his notarized affidavit, Jenkins only made conclusory statements that he was “a...