Shane v. Bio-Techne Corp.

1

Ryan Shane, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bio-Techne Corporation, Defendant.

Civ. No. 22-3039 (JWB/ECW)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

June 9, 2023

Nicholas J. Nelson, Esq., and Samuel W. Diehl, Esq. CrossCastle PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff.

Anna F. Barton, Esq., Charles G. Frohman, Esq., Stephanie M. Laws Esq., Maslon LLP, and Melissa R. Muro LaMere, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP, counsel for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

JERRY W. BLACKWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case joins the growing collection of litigation over employment practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. As vaccines against the disease became more widely available in 2021, state and federal authorities adjusted safety requirements and public health guidance. Employers across the country responded by implementing employee vaccination requirements, with much of the enforcement culminating in fall 2021. Lawsuits from former employees appeared shortly thereafter.

In this purported class action, Plaintiff Dr. Ryan Shane contends that Defendant Bio-Techne Corporation (“Bio-Techne”), his former employer discriminated against him based on his religious beliefs and based on a perceived disability, by denying him a religious exemption from the company's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy and terminating his employment for failing to comply with the policy. Because Dr. Shane's only plausible claim is that Bio-Techne failed to accommodate his religion, Bio-Techne's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND^[1]

I. Bio-Techne and Dr. Shane

Bio-Techne is a Minneapolis-based biotechnology company that develops and manufactures products used in medical and drug research. (Doc. No. 1, Complaint ¶ 12.) Bio-Techne hired Dr. Shane as a Virologist Lead Scientist in June 2021. (Id. ¶ 20.)

Dr. Shane often worked by himself in Bio-Techne's facility, either in his office or a lab. (Id. ¶¶ 20, 69.) He interacted with coworkers mostly by email or by phone and did not work directly with customers or vendors. (Id. ¶¶ 69, 71.) Dr. Shane would meet weekly with his manager either virtually or in person (while masked and social-distanced when required). (Id. ¶ 70.)

II. Bio-Techne Announces Vaccination Requirement

In early October 2021, Bio-Techne announced that employees who work at its United States offices or facilities had to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by November 1, 2021. (Id. ¶ 26; Doc. No. 15-1 at 1-4.) Bio-Techne planned to “resume normal operations, with all employees working on site” on that date. (Doc. No. 15-1 at 2.) The company expected the U.S. government to require employers like it to have a vaccine requirement in place. (Id. at 3.) The announcement informed employees about exemptions: “If you believe that you have a legitimate reason for a legally permitted exemption from this vaccine requirement, please contact your local Human Resources representative as soon as possible.” (Id.; Compl. ¶ 28.)

III. Dr. Shane Requests a Religious Exemption

Dr. Shane was not vaccinated against COVID-19. (Compl. ¶ 68.) He wished to remain that way, so on October 13, 2021, he requested a religious exemption from the vaccine requirement. (Id. ¶ 73; Doc. No. 15-1 at 2.) Human Resources emailed him the request form and the message: “We are encouraging employees to complete the form honestly with their sincerely held religious belief/practice so the committee can begin to research those values.” (Compl. ¶ 74-75; Doc. No. 15-1 at 2, 30-31.)

After receiving Dr. Shane's request, Human Resources sent him a questionnaire about his work duties, workspace, and proposed accommodations, which he answered. (Compl. ¶ 76, 78-79.) A representative then interviewed Dr. Shane about his beliefs and allegedly stated that religious accommodations were problematic for the business, but Dr. Shane's proposed accommodations were not specifically discussed.^[2] (Id. ¶¶ 85-86, 9192.)

IV. Bio-Techne Denies Dr. Shane's Request

A few weeks later, Bio-Techne denied Dr. Shane's exemption request by email. (Id. ¶ 94.) Bio-Techne acknowledged the sincerity of Dr. Shane's religious objection but decided there was “no sufficiently safe and acceptable accommodation or alternative” to vaccination. (Id. ¶ 94-95; Doc. No. 15-1 at 33.) The company informed him that remaining unvaccinated would pose an undue hardship, extra administrative burdens and costs, and an unreasonable safety risk to others:

Unfortunately, at the present time and based on CDC guidance and prevailing science, there are no accommodations that can make interactions with customers or other employees equally as safe as being fully vaccinated. Accordingly, the Company determined it could not grant your exemption request because your role requires you to have significant interaction with and exposure to other employees, work in shared workspaces with other employees, and attend in-person meetings and presentations.

(Doc. No. 15-1 at 33.)

The email gave a final warning: “In the event you choose to remain unvaccinated, then your final day with the Company will be November 30, 2021, because you will no longer meet the requirements for employment.” (Id.)

Dr. Shane replied to voice skepticism about Bio-Techne's claimed hardships and to question “why the company has not been willing to consider any potential alternatives” to vaccination. (Compl. ¶ 97.) Bio-Techne responded that it could not implement or monitor Dr. Shane's accommodation compliance to ensure workplace safety. (Id. ¶ 98.) Dr. Shane elected to remain unvaccinated and was eventually terminated.

V. Dr. Shane Files Suit

Just over a year later, Dr. Shane sued Bio-Techne, alleging that the company never intended to grant his accommodation request and discriminated against him by judging his religious beliefs to be incompatible with science.^[3] (Id. ¶¶ 129-30.) He claims the alleged misconduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) (Count I) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) (Count II). (Id. ¶¶ 142, 167.)

Dr. Shane also alleges that Bio-Techne fired him based on its perception that his immune system was deficient without a COVID-19 vaccine. (Id. ¶¶ 176-78, 188-90.) He claims this constitutes illegal “regarded as” disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (Count III) and the MHRA (Count IV). (Id. ¶¶ 179, 191.)

Bio-Techne moves to dismiss Dr. Shane's claims with prejudice. (Doc. No. 11.)

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Dismiss Standard

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must provide “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). A claim is plausible on its face when the plaintiff pleads sufficient facts to draw “the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. This requires a complaint to contain enough factual allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A recitation of the elements of a cause of action, supported merely by conclusory allegations, is not sufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts the well-pled allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Schriener v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 774 F.3d 442, 444 (8th Cir. 2014). However, this tenet does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Court may also consider materials that are necessarily embraced by the pleadings. See Schriener, 774 F.3d at 444.

II. Religious Discrimination Claims (Counts I-II)

Dr. Shane claims that Bio-Techne violated both federal and state laws that prohibit employers from failing to hire, discharging, or otherwise discriminating against an individual because of the individual's religion. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 2. Under federal law, “religion” includes “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate [the] religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). The MHRA does not define “religion.”

Absent direct evidence of discrimination, the McDonnell Douglas framework applies to both Title VII and MHRA claims. See Said v. Mayo Clinic, 44 F.4th 1142, 1148 n.6 (8th Cir. 2022); Maroko v. Werner Enters., Inc., 778 F.Supp.2d 993, 998 n.5 (D. Minn. 2011). Under that framework, “a plaintiff must first state a prima facie case of discrimination, which shifts the burden to the defendant to proffer a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the challenged action.” Said, 44 F.4th at 1148 (citation omitted). “If the defendant presents a non-discriminatory reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the alleged reason was pretext for discrimination.” Id. (citation omitted).

“[I]ntentional religious discrimination and the failure to reasonably accommodate an employee's religion are distinct Title VII claims.” Sturgill v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 512 F.3d 1024, 1034 (8th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the prima facie case “varies depending on the type of employment decision that is challenged.” Gilbert v. MetLife, Inc., No. 09-cv-1990 (JRT/JSM), 2011 WL 1843441, at *6 (D. Minn. Mar. 14, 2011) (quoting Friend v. Gopher Co., 771 N.W.2d 33, 37 (Minn.App. 2009)); see also Lewis v. St. Cloud State Univ., No. 04-cv-4379 (RHK/RLE), 2005 WL 3134064, at *5 (D. Minn. Nov. 23, 2005) (...