Kondilis v. City of Chicago

1

ADRIANNA KONDILIS, BRANDEN LISCIANDRELLO, EDWARD GARCIA, JOSEPH MIRANDA, JULIE ORTEGA, MARCIN KAZARNOWICZ, MIKE BILINA, ROBERT HILLIARD, STEFANIE MINGARI, STEPHANIE FOX, VICTOR SOKOLOVSKI, MICHELLE MAXWELL, DANIELLE PHILP, TONI SHYTELL, JULIE HATFIELD, MELISSA SCHROEDER, and STEPHANIE TONEY, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, Defendant.

No. 23 C 2249

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

May 23, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT W. GETTLEMAN, JUDGE

Plaintiffs Adrianna Kondilis, Branden Lisciandrello, Edward Garcia Joseph Miranda, Julie Ortega, Marcin Kazarnowicz, Mike Bilina, Robert Hilliard, Stefanie Mingari, Stephanie Fox Victor Sokolovski, Michelle Maxwell, Danielle Philp, Toni Shytell, Julie Hatfield, Melissa Schroeder, and Stephanie Toney, have brought a six count third amended complaint (“complaint”) against their employer, defendant City of Chicago. Count 1, brought on behalf of plaintiffs Kondilis, Kazarnowicz, and Toney, is a claim for religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (“Title VII”). Count 2, brought by all plaintiffs, asserts a claim for deprivation of plaintiffs' First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Count 3 alleges a violation of all plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Count 4 alleges a substantive due process deprivation of plaintiffs' right to nondisclosure of private medical information. Count 5 asserts a claim under Illinois' Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“IRFRA”), 775 ILCS 35/1, et seq. Finally, Count 6 asserts a claim for indemnification under 745 ILCS §§ 10/1-202, 2-302, and 10/9-102. Defendant has moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)(6) to dismiss all counts for failure to state a claim. For the reasons described below, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are all Chicago Police Department Officers except plaintiff Toney, who is employed as a Police Communication Officer II with Chicago's Office Emergency Management and Communications. In October 2021 defendant instituted a Vaccination Policy requiring all employees to obtain a COVID-19 vaccination. The Vaccination Policy also required employees who were not vaccinated for any reason to undergo periodic testing and to report that testing through the COVID-19 Vaccination Portal. The Vaccination Policy permitted accommodations for disability/medical conditions and religion. Specifically, the Vaccination Policy in Section VI. B. provides:

Religious Accommodations

1. The City provides religious accommodations to employees with sincerely held religious beliefs unless such accommodation would create an undue hardship. Requests for accommodations will be made on a case-by-case basis consistent with existing procedures for reasonable accommodation requests.

2. Employees who believe they need an accommodation regarding this policy because of a sincerely held religious belief may request a reasonable accommodation through the Department of Human Resources. A form for requesting such an accommodation is attached to this policy as Exhibit B.

Section VII of the Vaccination Policy, titled Reporting Testing Results provides:

A. Employees, volunteers, and contractors who are covered by this policy who are not fully vaccinated by October 15, 2021, for reasons including but not limited to verified medical conditions or restrictions or sincerely held religious beliefs (as discussed in Section VI), shall be required to undergo COVID-19 testing on a twice weekly basis with tests separated by 3-4 days. Employees shall be responsible for obtaining tests on their own time and at no cost to the City.

B. Employees must report their test results through the COVID-19 Employee Testing Portal.

Employees will be required to submit the following information:

1. The date of the test;

2. The type of test obtained;

3. The results of the test;

4. A declaration that the information provided is true and accurate; and,

5. A copy of their test results.

C. In cases where the City has reason to believe that the testing information provided by the employee was not true or accurate, an employee may be required to provide additional information, including but not limited, a written statement describing the testing process.

D. Employees who fail to report test results as required by this section will be placed in a non-disciplinary no-pay status until they report their test results.

On October 14, 2021, just one day before employees were to report their vaccination status in the Portal, plaintiff Kondilis submitted a request for a religious accommodation on the required form. The request was incomplete because it lacked a religious leader's signature. Defendant requested additional information about Kondilis' religious beliefs, including the signature of a religious leader. Kondilis provided the updated information, and specifically requested “a religious accommodation that will excuse me from having to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and further request that no adverse action be taken against me on account of my religious beliefs.” That request was approved.

Despite making her initial request just one day before the reporting deadline, Kondilis did not enter her vaccination status into the Portal on October 15, 2021, as required of all employees. On November 21, 2021, she received a written direct order from Deputy Chief Ursitti to comply with the written Department Policy by entering her current vaccination status into the Portal as required of all employees. She refused that direct order. As a result, she was placed on a non-disciplinary, no-pay status. Even after her request for an accommodation was approved, she continued to refuse to enter her vaccination status or testing reports into the Portal as required by the Vaccination Policy. Her refusal precluded her from returning to work.

Plaintiff Kazarnowicz also submitted a request for a religious exemption on October 14, 2021, just one day before the reporting requirement deadline. His request was also incomplete, lacking a religious leader's signature. He was asked to supply the missing information. Upon supplying the information his request for an accommodation was granted. Like Kondilis, Kazarnowicz did not enter his vaccination status into the Portal by October 15, 2021, claiming he was awaiting his exemption and that he had concerns about privacy and security. He too received a direct written order from Ursitti to comply with Department Policy by entering his vaccination status into the Portal. He refused to comply and was placed on a non-disciplinary no-pay status until he complied with the reporting requirement. He alleges that he was stripped of his status as a police officer because of refusing a second order and has never regained it even after entering his vaccination status into the Portal. He has returned to work at ¶ 311-call center.

Plaintiff Toney also submitted her request for a religious accommodation in October 2021. She never submitted a signature from a religious leader as requested by defendant. As a result, her request was denied, and she was placed on a non-disciplinary, no-pay status. She did not enter her vaccination status into the Portal by October 15, 2021, as required of all employees.

Each of the remaining plaintiffs are in similar situations. Each alleges that he or she submitted a request for a religious accommodation excusing each from being receiving a vaccination. Each request was either incomplete and/or more information was requested by defendant. Each plaintiff who provided the requested information alleges that the requested accommodation was approved. Each plaintiff refused to comply with the Vaccination Policy by submitting their vaccination status into the Portal by October 15, 2021, even after receiving direct orders to do so, resulting in adverse consequences. None of the requests for accommodations indicated that any plaintiff had a religious belief that precluded them from entering the required information into the Portal.

DISCUSSION

Defendant has moved to dismiss all six counts for failure to state a claim. “To survive a motion to dismiss [under Rule 12(b)(6)], a complaint must allege sufficient factual matter accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), citing Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6). For a claim to have “facial plausibility,” a plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but has not shown—that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

In Count 1, plaintiffs Kondilis, Kazarnowicz, and Toney allege that defendant violated Title VII's prohibition of discrimination based on religion by failing to provide them a reasonable accommodation from the Vaccination Policy. To state such a claim, they must allege an observance or practice conflicting with an employment requirement is religious in nature, that they called the observance or practice to defendant's attention, and that the observance or practice was the basis for the alleged discrimination. Porter v. City of Chicago, 700 F.3d 944, 951 (7^th Cir. 2012).

Defendant argues that plaintiffs have not and cannot allege the required elements for their claim. Each plaintiff's exemption request articulated only that they had a religious objection to receiving the vaccination. None of their requests indicated a...