PHILADELPHIA – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has concurred with a lower court that the civil rights of a former Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia employee were not violated, when she was terminated for refusing to be vaccinated for the flu.
On Feb. 14, a trio of Third Circuit judges issued a ruling in favor of the hospital and against plaintiff Niaja Brown, affirming the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in so doing.
Brown filed a complaint in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in May 2008, alleging CHOP discriminated against her based on her religion, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2, when it terminated her employment.
The hospital then removed the complaint to federal court.
“In her operative second amended complaint, she alleged that she had worked for CHOP for 15 years. In 2012, CHOP began to require employees to receive a flu vaccine. Apparently, she complied until 2017, when she decided she ‘could no longer go against [her] beliefs.’ She stated that she ‘did not have a pastor to validate [her] beliefs,’ and instead, submitted an ‘advance vaccine directive’ prepared by Natural Solutions Foundation that registered her opposition to vaccines,” the Third Circuit said.
“A week later, a manager at CHOP called Brown to ask whether she had received her flu shot. Brown ‘told her no and asked why [she] was being force[d] to obtain the shot when in former years (10), she had proven to remain healthy due to my African Holistic Health lifestyle.’ CHOP subsequently fired Brown for her failure to comply with its flu-vaccine policy,” the Third Circuit said.
“CHOP moved to dismiss her second amended complaint. The District Court granted CHOP’s motion, concluding that Brown failed to allege sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of religious discrimination. Brown filed a timely notice of appeal, and subsequently moved in the District Court for reconsideration, which was denied by the District Court.”
On appeal, the Third Circuit stated it agreed with the District Court’s analysis.
In order to establish a prima facie case for failure to accommodate, a plaintiff must show: “(1) They have a sincere religious belief that conflicts with a job requirement; (2) They told the employer about the conflict; and (3) They were disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting requirement.”
The Third Circuit panel explained that to state a claim under this statute, “it is not sufficient merely to hold a sincere opposition to vaccination; rather, the individual must show that the opposition to vaccination is a religious belief.”
“Nothing in Brown’s second amended complaint suggests that her opposition to the flu vaccine was religious. At one point, she claimed that the vaccine was unnecessary for her because she scrupulously washed her hands, but any ‘concern that the flu vaccine may do more harm than good…is a medical belief, not a religious one.’ Likewise, the advance directive that she provided is a medical document without any religious component. Nor do any of her other allegations tend to show that her belief was religious,” the Third Circuit said.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 18-3685
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:18-cv-02363
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 180503328
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com