PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has ruled that a former engineering supervisor who claimed he faced religious discrimination in his work at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia based upon his refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine and who was later fired for that same decision, has presented a strong enough case for the matter to proceed.
Plaintiff Donald Glover of East Ridge, Tenn. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 6, 2023 versus The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
“On Dec. 17, 2017, defendant CHOP hired plaintiff as a supervisor in the Biomedical Engineering Department. Plaintiff worked in CHOP’s University City medical facilities. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. On March 13, 2020, former President Donald Trump declared COVID-19 a national emergency. On Aug. 3, 2021, CHOP’s Chief Executive Officer issued a vaccine mandate which required all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Oct. 20, 2021. On Aug. 23, 2021, CHOP implemented a Standard Operating Procedure for handling requests for religious exemptions and accommodations to the mandate. CHOP employees seeking a medical or religious exemption were required to file their requests by Sept. 15, 2021,” U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Joel H. Slomsky recounted in his Jan. 25 memorandum opinion.
“On Sept. 9, 2021, plaintiff submitted a Religious Accommodation Request form to CHOP. In the request, plaintiff sought an exemption from taking the vaccine and no other alternative accommodations. In his request, plaintiff also stated that he was a practicing Christian for 20 years and affiliated with Church International since December 2020. In his request, plaintiff also acknowledged that he had not previously sought exemptions for other vaccines, including the Influenza vaccine, which was annually required of all CHOP employees. On Sept. 22, 2021, defendant denied plaintiff’s request for an exemption because plaintiff did not ‘sufficiently demonstrate that the sincerely held religious belief prohibits vaccination.’ Plaintiff was permitted to file an appeal of defendant’s decision by Sept. 25, 2021. On Sept. 22, 2022, plaintiff timely filed an appeal.”
In his appeal, Glover cited several reasons why CHOP should grant him a religious exemption to the vaccine mandate, including, in his own view, an opposition to aborted fetal cells being used in the development of the vaccine; that taking the vaccine would go against his beliefs that his body is “God’s temple” because the vaccine is “unclean” and; “that ‘he is being discriminated against because he refuse[s] to take an experimental vaccine.”
CHOP denied Glover’s appeal on Oct. 11, 2021, finding that “the evidence provided does not support your assertion that your belief is religious in nature…[or] sincerely held” and ordering Glover to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to keep working at CHOP. Glover did not comply and on Nov. 8, 2021, CHOP terminated his employment.
Glover then brought his complaint in February 2023, where he alleged that as a result of his termination, he was briefly unemployed, then moved to a new job at the Children’s Hospital at Erlanger in Chattanooga, Tenn. The following May, CHOP motioned to dismiss the complaint for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
“To survive defendant’s motion to dismiss the federal and state claims, plaintiff’s complaint must allege sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination. To state a prima facie claim of religious discrimination, an employee must show that (1) They held a sincere religious belief that conflicted with a job requirement, (2) They informed the employer of that conflict, and (3) They were disciplined for not complying with the conflicting job requirement. Here, the second and third element are plainly satisfied. It is evident from the complaint that plaintiff informed defendant of the conflict with an accommodation request and appeal letter. In addition, plaintiff was terminated by defendant on Nov. 8, 2021 for failure to comply with the mandate,” Slomsky stated.
“As a result, the only element at issue here is the first one: Whether plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to show that he had a sincerely held religious belief which conflicted with a job requirement. Defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to establish this element. Courts typically break down this element into two parts: (1) Is the belief sincerely held?, and (2) Is the belief religious in nature? Defendant only contests whether plaintiff’s beliefs are religious in nature. This Court disagrees with the position of defendant. Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to show that he has a sincerely held belief that is religious in nature.”
At the motion to dismiss stage, Slomsky found that Glover did sufficiently plead that his beliefs are religious in nature, citing his beliefs that (1) The use of aborted fetal cells in vaccines is gravely wrong, and (2) His body is “God’s temple” satisfy the three-part inquiry in Africa v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and are sufficiently religious in nature under Title VII to survive defendant’s motion to dismiss.
“First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs,” Slomsky said.
Slomsky added that “while some of plaintiff’s stated reasons are philosophical, secular, or medical in nature, these reasons do not detract from plaintiff’s religious reasons which satisfy the first element of his prima facie religious discrimination claim.”
Slomsky then analyzed each of the three criteria in the Africa decision: “1) Ultimate ideas; 2) Comprehensiveness and 3) Structural characteristics.”
“Here, the first criterion under Africa weighs in plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff states that he believes that ‘all human beings are made in the image of God, and this idea affirms the unique value of all human life…I believe that abortion is gravely wrong at every stage…the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines in early development of mRNA vaccine technology used fetal cells for ‘proof of concept.’ As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, such beliefs concerning abortion ‘present a profound moral issue.’ And here, plaintiff’s beliefs about being made in the image of God, the value of human life and the morality of abortion ‘address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters.’ In addition, plaintiff’s belief that ‘abortion is gravely wrong at every stage’ because the Bible forbids murder deals with ‘life and death’ and ‘right and wrong.’ Thus, the first criterion under Africa weighs in favor of plaintiff’s beliefs being religious in nature,” Slomsky said.
“Second, the comprehensiveness inquiry also weighs in plaintiff’s favor. In Africa, the second criterion requires that a belief be ‘comprehensive in nature…consisting of a belief system as opposed to an isolated teaching.’ Here, plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to show that his beliefs about the use of aborted fetal cells in the COVID-19 vaccine are a part of his broader Christian faith. Plaintiff alleges that he has been a practicing Christian for 20 years and remotely attends Church International. In addition…plaintiff provides Biblical verses to support his belief that his body is ‘God’s temple’ and taking a vaccine which uses aborted fetal cells is morally wrong according to his faith. Viewing such facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, he has sufficiently pled that his beliefs are ‘comprehensive in nature.’ Finally, the third criterion under Africa – that the beliefs are exhibited through ‘formal and external signs’ – weighs in favor of plaintiff’s beliefs being religious in nature. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, his beliefs about the use of aborted fetal cells, his body as ‘God’s temple,’ and the COVID-19 vaccine are cohesive with his Christian faith, plaintiff [also] alleges that he is a practicing Christian who attends Church International. He has ‘cited scripture and reasons beyond mere threadbare assertions’ that demonstrate such beliefs are intrinsic to his faith. Thus, for all the above reasons, plaintiff’s beliefs are sufficiently pled as religious in nature at this stage. Therefore, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, he has pled sufficient facts to satisfy each element of religious discrimination under Title VII. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss will be denied.”
For counts of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the plaintiff is seeking lost wages spanning Nov. 8, 2021 to Dec. 6, 2021; the difference between Glover’s salary while employed at CHOP and while employed at CHE through Glover’s 70th birthday on April 13, 2032; the difference between CHOP’s expected contribution and CHE’s contribution to Glover's 403(b) retirement plan; the expenses Glover incurred in moving from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Chattanooga, Tennessee; the emotional distress and upset cause by CHOP’s intentional violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e(j); punitive damages; attorney’s fees and costs and such other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by David S. Dessen of Dessen Moses & Rossitto, in Willow Grove.
The defendant is represented by Charlene A. Barker, Jared Pickell, Joseph J. Centeno and Michael Edward Truncellito of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-00463
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com