Ritter v. Lehigh Valley Health Network

1

TIFFANY RITTER, Plaintiff, v. LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH NETWORK, Defendant.

CIVIL No. 22-4897

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

February 15, 2024

MEMORANDUM

HON KAI N. SCOTT, United State/District Court Judge.

Plaintiff Tiffany Ritter brings this action against her former employer, Defendant Lehigh Valley Health Network, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated these laws by failing to accommodate her request for a religious exemption to Defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Presently pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No 9), to which Plaintiff filed an Opposition (ECF No. 11). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion (ECF No 9) will be granted and Plaintiffs Complaint with be dismissed with prejudice. An appropriate Order will follow.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in 2015 as a Health and Wellness Coach. ECF No. 1 at 2 ¶ 5.^[1] In this role, Plaintiff worked in an office where direct patient contact was not part of her job responsibilities. Id. Moreover, sometime in 2021, Plaintiff was transitioned to permanent work-from-home employment status by Defendant. Id.

In August 2021, Defendant implemented a policy mandating all employees be vaccinated against COVID-19. Id. at 2-3 ¶ 6. Under this policy, employees were required to provide proof of receipt of a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine series, or otherwise submit a request for an exemption by September 15, 2021. Id. Plaintiff submitted a request to be exempt from the vaccine mandate on September 1, 2021. See id. at 3 ¶ 3; see also id. at 11, Ex. A. Her request stated she “ha[s] religious beliefs against taking vaccines.” See id. at 3 ¶ 3; see also id. at 11, Ex. A.

Upon receipt of Plaintiffs request, Defendant's then-Deputy General Counsel for Litigation and Risk Management, Glenn Guanowsky, Esq., corresponded with Plaintiff and requested Plaintiff complete Defendant's enclosed Request for Religious Exemption Form “to the best of [her] ability” by September 10, 2021. Id. at 3 ¶ 4. Plaintiff responded to this correspondence indicating that she had questions regarding how Defendant wished for her to complete the form and what information, exactly, it sought from her. Id. Mr. Guanowsky responded to Plaintiffs question by stating, “[t]his is a question that is evaluated based on the applicable law. In order to maintain integrity of the review process, everyone is free to provide any and all information they believe will help to explain their belief.” Id. Plaintiff responded requesting the applicable law be specified, to which Mr. Guanowsky replied “[t]he statutes and applicable caselaw interpreting those statutes. I am not going to provide additional detail.” Id.

On September 10, 2021, Plaintiff submitted her completed Religious Exemption Form and enclosed a written statement explaining that she has a sincerely held religious belief against the use of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Id. at 4 ¶ 5; see also id. at 17, Ex. C. This submission is attached to Plaintiffs Complaint. Id., Ex. C. In her submission, Plaintiff states, in pertinent part, that:

I've been a born-again Christian for 16 years. I've attended and graduated from Christian schools, play on my churches [sic] Worship Team, and attend church regularly. I read the Bible, pray, and interact with God daily.

I have prayed about how to respond to the COVID-19 vaccination directive, in light of my bio-individuality and religious beliefs. I sincerely believe my body is unique, made by and belongs to God and is the temple of His Holy Spirit, [citing Psalm 139:13-18, 1 Cor. 6:19-20, 1 Cor. 3:16, John 14:17], ...

As part of my prayers, and time spent in God's Word through the Holy Bible, I have asked God for wisdom, guidance, discernment, and direction regarding the current COVID-19 vaccinations and mandates. As I have prayed about what I should do, the Holy Spirit has moved on my heart, and conscience that I must not accept the COVID-19 vaccines.

Everything about these vaccines goes against my sense (the sense God has given me) of what is the right thing to do. . . .

I believe God to be the ultimate authority over my life. John 17:2. If I were to go against the moving of the Holy Spirit, I would be sinning and violating the decision and direction God has given me.

Id. at 22-23.

On September 16, 2021, Plaintiff received correspondence from Mr. Guanowsky, stating that her request had been reviewed and it was denied. Id. at 4 ¶ 6. The correspondence did not include an explanation for the denial. Id. Following this denial, Plaintiff requested to engage in a “proper interactive process” with Defendant concerning her request for a religious accommodation and did so by sending an email to Mr. Guanowsky and three other individuals on September 17, 2021. Id. at 4 ¶ 7. Within this email, Plaintiff requested reconsideration of her accommodation request as well as an explanation for the denial so she could “better understand” how to fill out Defendant's forms. Id. Just four minutes after sending this email, Plaintiff received a response from Mr. Guanowsky stating, “There is no appeal and there will be no further discussions on this topic . . . [t]he deadlines are fast approaching.” Id.

Subsequently, on September 21,2021, Plaintiff sent an email to Heather Cardona and Sarah Engler of Defendant “requesting a meeting to discuss [her] rights as an employee” as she felt she had “been discriminated against and harassed for religious beliefs” and wished to “report discrimination and harassment, and what can be done about the situation.” Id. at 5 ¶ 8. Thereafter, Plaintiff spoke with Ms. Cardona via telephone, during which time Ms. Cardona told Plaintiff she would look into the situation and get back to Plaintiff. Id. On October 1, 2021, Ms. Cardona emailed Plaintiff stating that she cannot provide “any additional information” regarding Plaintiffs exemption denial and that there “is not an option to appeal this further.” Id. On that same day, Defendant issued a Personnel Report to Plaintiff containing a “Final Warning” that she was in violation of Defendant's vaccination policy, and that if she was not “fully vaccinated” by November 12, 2021, her employment would be terminated. Id. at 5 ¶ 9. Plaintiff responded by reasserting that COVID-19 vaccination conflicted with her sincerely held religious beliefs. Id. Thereafter, Defendant sent Plaintiff a Personnel Report dated November 15, 2021, advising Plaintiff that her employment had been terminated. Id. at 6 ¶ 10.

Following her termination, on January 28, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a Charge of Discrimination to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging that she was the victim of religious discrimination in contravention of Title VIL Id. at 6 ¶ 12. On September 9, 2022, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue to Plaintiff. Id. This case followed.

Plaintiff filed this action on December 8, 2022, alleging violations of Title VII and the PHRA under theories of “failure to accommodate,” “disparate treatment,” and “retaliation.” Id. at 7-9. On May 5, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that Plaintiffs claims fail because her beliefs cannot be said to be religious in nature. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff filed an Opposition in Response to Defendant's Motion on February 5,2024.^[2] ECF No. 11. The Court finds this Motion appropriate for resolution without oral argument.^[3] Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7.1(f).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “a complaint must contain 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) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Plausibility means ‘more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.'” Tatis v. Allied Interstate, LLC, 882 F.3d 422, 426 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads 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 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all inferences are drawn in the plaintiffs favor. See McTernan v. City of York, 577 F.3d 521, 526 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Schrob v. Catterson, 948 F.2d 1402, 1408 (3d Cir. 1991)).

III. DISCUSSION

Title VII and the PHRA prohibit religious discrimination in employment.^[4] Under these laws, employees may assert different theories of religious discrimination. Abramson v. William Paterson College of New Jersey, 260 F.3d 265, 281 (3d Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiff alleges theories of failure to accommodate and disparate treatment, along with a retaliation claim. The Court will address each theory of liability in turn.

A. Failure to Accommodate

To establish a prima facie case of failure to accommodate “the employee must show: (1) she holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with a job requirement; (2) she informed her employer of the conflict; and (3) she was disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting requirement.” EEOC v. GEO Grp., Inc., 616 F.3d 265,271 (3dCir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Plaintiffs are not required to establish each...