Shields v. Main Line Hosps., Inc.

700 F.Supp.3d 265

Rosemary SHIELDS, Plaintiff, v. MAIN LINE HOSPITALS, INC., and Main Line Health, Inc., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-03307-MRP

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Filed October 27, 2023

Michael Davey, Eckell Sparks Levy Auerbach Monte Rainer & Sloane, P.C., Media, PA, for Plaintiff.

Caren Litvin, Radnor, PA, Brendan Hennessy, Hennessy Law, Malvern, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

PEREZ, District Judge

Plaintiff Rosemary Shields commenced this action against her employer, Defendants Main Line Hospitals, Inc. and Main Line Health, Inc. (collectively, "Main Line Health"), alleging religious discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"). Specifically, Ms. Shields brought claims for failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, and retaliation after Main Line Health terminated her and declined to rehire her after she refused to comply with a mandatory COVID vaccination policy for employees.

The parties now both move for summary judgment. Ms. Shields moves for summary judgment on the undue hardship issue implicated by her failure to accommodate claim. Main Line Health moves for summary judgment on all counts. For the reasons that follow, Main Line Health's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Ms. Shields's motion for summary judgment is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Rosemary Shields was terminated by Main Line Health because she refused to get vaccinated against COVID. ECF No. 39-1 at ¶¶ 108-09. Ms. Shields opposed the vaccine based on her belief in God-given natural immunity and belief against the use of fetal cell lines in the development of vaccines. In September 2021, due to the strain COVID placed on the healthcare system, Main Line Health implemented a mandatory COVID vaccination policy for employees, unless they were granted a religious exemption. ECF No. 30-2 at ¶ 58. On October 8, Ms. Shields sent an email to Main Line Health's Chief Executive Office ("CEO") and forty others, attaching a letter where she communicated concerns about staffing shortages, safety concerns, and questioned Main Line Health's failure to take natural immunity into account in enforcing the vaccination policy. Id. at ¶¶ 117-18. On October 14, Plaintiff met with Main Line Health's CEO, Chief Medical Officer ("CMO"), Chief Operational Officer ("CEO"), and VP of Patient Care Services to discuss the concerns she addressed in her letter. Id. at ¶ 124.

On October 20, the religious exemption committee considered Ms. Shields's religious exemption request. Id. at ¶ 151. The committee that considered the request received only a letter from Ms. Shields's attorney in support of her request. Id. at ¶ 154. The same day, the committee denied the request, explaining that the attorney letter did not explain how her belief was in conflict with the vaccination requirement. Id. at ¶ 158. Ms. Shields appealed the denial and submitted four documents in support of her appeal: (1) a religious exemption form; (2) the letter from her attorney; (3) a one-and-a-half-page letter; and (4) a seven-page research letter. Id. at ¶ 159. The appeal committee consisted of the CMO, COO, and others. Id. at ¶ 96. On October 27, 2021, the appeal committee notified Ms. Shields that it denied her appeal. Id. at ¶ 197. Main Line Health's mandatory COVID vaccination policy required all employees to be vaccinated against COVID by November 1, 2021, unless they were granted an exemption. ECF No. 39-1 at ¶ 25. Ms. Shields never received the COVID vaccine and was terminated on November 2. Id. at ¶ 110.

In May 2022, Ms. Shields reapplied for her job. Id. at ¶ 111. Because the COVID vaccination policy remained in place, she submitted a new religious exemption request. Id. In support of her exemption request, Ms. Shields submitted (1) a new exemption request form; (2) a letter from Reverend Michael J. Gerlach; and (3) the one-and-a-half-page letter she submitted in her appeal, among other materials already submitted. Id. at ¶ 112. The committee denied Ms. Shields's second religious exemption request. Id. at ¶ 122. As a result, she was not rehired as vaccination was pre-requisite to employment, absent an exemption. Id. at ¶ 129.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is properly granted when there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Facts are material if they "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Physicians Health-source, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc., et al., 954 F.3d 615, 618 (3d Cir. 2020). A dispute as to those facts "is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. This Court "view[s] all the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all inferences in that party's favor." Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Main Line Health moves for summary judgment on all counts. Ms. Shields, on the other hand, moves for summary judgment on Main Line Health's "undue burden" defense, which it asserts in its Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh affirmative defenses. For the reasons set forth below, Main Line Health's motion will be granted in part and denied in part. Ms. Shields's motion will be denied.

Under Title VII, employees may assert two forms of religious discrimination: failure to accommodate and disparate treatment. Abramson v. William Paterson Coll. of New Jersey, 260 F.3d 265, 281 (3d Cir. 2001). Ms. Shields asserts both, in addition to a retaliation claim. We address each theory of liability in turn.

A. Failure to Accommodate

To make 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 Group, Inc., 616 F.3d 265, 271 (3d Cir. 2010). "The burden then shifts to the employer to show (1) it made a good-faith effort to reasonably accommodate the religious belief, or (2) such an accommodation would work an undue hardship upon the employer and its business." Id. We begin with Ms. Shields's prima facie case.

Main Line Health challenges only the first element of Ms. Shields's prima facie case. Thus, to determine whether Ms. Shields has met her burden, this Court need only consider whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a factfinder could conclude that Ms. Shields's beliefs are (1) sincerely held, and (2) religious within her own scheme of things. See Welsh v. U.S., 398 U.S. 333, 339, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970). Main Line Health then argues, even if Ms. Shields has established a prima facie case, it is still entitled to summary judgment because granting Ms. Shields a religious exemption would have "imposed an undue burden" on it. See ECF No. 30-1 at 14.

1. Sincerely Held Religious Belief

Main Line Health argues that Ms. Shields's objections to the COVID vaccine—namely, her belief in natural immunity and her belief against taking a vaccine derived from fetal cell lines—are not religious in nature and are therefore not subject to accommodation. This Court is mindful that whether Ms. Shields's beliefs are religious "presents a most delicate question[.]" Africa v. Com. of Pa., 662 F.2d 1025, 1031 (3d Cir. 1981). This Court is equally mindful, however, that "the very concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing [Ms. Shields], or any other person, a blanket privilege to make [her] own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Whether a belief is sincerely held is a question of fact. See U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 85 S. Ct. 850, 863, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965). To determine whether a belief is "religious," the Third Circuit has routinely considered whether it: (1) addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters; (2) is comprehensive in nature; and (3) is accompanied by the presence of certain formal and external signs. Africa v. Com. of Pa., 662 F.2d 1025, 1032 (3d Cir. 1981). Fundamental and ultimate questions "could be best described as . . . questions having to do with, among other things, life and death, right and wrong, and good and evil." Id. at 1033. A belief is comprehensive in nature if it "consist[s] of something more than a number of isolated, unconnected ideas." Id. at 1035. That is, it cannot be "confined to one question or one moral teaching; it has a broader scope. It lays claim to an ultimate and comprehensive 'truth.' " Id. Lastly, the presence of certain formal and external signs can include "formal services, ceremonial functions, the existence of clergy, structure and organization, efforts at propagation, observance of holidays, and other similar manifestations associated with the traditional religions." Id.

a. Natural Immunity

Ms. Shields has not established that her belief in natural immunity is religious under the Africa framework. Ms. Shields first mentioned her belief that she has natural immunity in the letter she sent to Main Line Health's CEO on October 8, 2021. ECF No. 30-2 at ¶ 118. The letter states that "[n]atural immunity[ ] is something humans have acquired and perfected for millions of years . . . . How much more proof do you need that natural immunity works? . . . How can a premier medical and health care organization ignore the proven medical science of natural immunity?" ECF No. 30-17 at 5-6. The letter adds, "I am the one who has not had Covid again despite being exposed to it numerous times. How can you justify firing me and continue to let vaccinated nurses work even though they can get Covid even after getting the vaccine?" Id. at 5. Ms. Shields states that she mentioned her natural immunity beliefs again during the meeting on October 14, 2021, but none of the...