If you are an employer or an employee in the healthcare industry, you remember the situation quite well.

In September 2021, an order through the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandated that employees of all federally-funded Medicaid and Medicare-certified health care facilities were required to be vaccinated by January 4, 2022, unless granted a medical or religious exemption. After the Order was challenged, on January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the Rule. The mandate was not officially withdrawn by the Biden administration until May 11, 2023.

As an employment attorney, I was flooded with questions from (mostly frustrated) employers during this time. Most of the questions stemmed from employees claiming a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate. Employers wanted to know – what can we do about this, particularly when they so often suspected that the employee’s religious beliefs weren’t sincerely held?

My answer was consistent: As an employer, it is your obligation to consider all accommodation requests on a separate, case-by-case basis. Obligations are obligations, after all – that is, your obligation as an employer to accommodate the sincerely-held religious beliefs of your workforce would not take a backseat to the vaccine mandate then in effect.

The case of Barnett v. Inova Health Care Services, published earlier this month, underscores that point.

Plaintiff Kristen Barnett was a registered nurse and employee of INOVA. Ms. Barnett refused to receive the COVID-19 vaccine because of its conflict with her religious beliefs. INOVA denied her request for a religious exemption. INOVA terminated her employment, and Ms. Barnett filed a Title VII religious discrimination claim against INOVA.

While the district court granted INOVA’s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Appellate Court noted that questions concerning the sincerity of one’s religious beliefs “can rarely be determined on summary judgment, let alone a motion to dismiss.”  The Appellate Court also allowed Ms. Barnett’s disparate treatment claim to proceed, as she alleged that INOVA treated her differently than other employees (who received medical exemptions) because of her religious beliefs.

Of course, we don’t know whether Ms. Barnett’s religious discrimination claims will ultimately prevail. For many employers, that question is irrelevant considering the cost it will take to get there.

The lesson here is a simple one. Employees requesting a religious accommodation only are required to show the bare minimum regarding the sincerity of their religious beliefs. Employers who wish to make such a challenge do so at their own peril.

If you are facing a religious accommodation decision in the workplace, whether related to vaccines or something else, contact an RKW employment attorney.

‍