WILLIAMSPORT – A former public library employee in Lewisburg who alleged her Christian beliefs were the determinative factor in the library’s decision to terminate her employment, when she sought a religious exemption to its mandatory mask policy during the COVID-19 pandemic, has settled her claims.
Davena L. Laverty first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 1 versus The Public Library for Union County. Both parties are of Lewisburg.
“At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was an employee of the Public Library for Union County. Plaintiff was hired by defendant on or about Jan. 10, 2018. Plaintiff began her full-time employment with defendant as the Children’s Programing Assistant. Plaintiff is a practicing Christian. Plaintiff received benefits in the nature of paid vacation, sick and personal time, paid medical, dental and vision insurance as an employee of the defendant. Without any official mandate from the federal or state government, the defendant notified employees on Aug. 19, 2021, that effective Aug. 23, 2021, staff would be required to wear masks in public areas of the library or within close proximity to another staff member,” the suit said.
“Despite mandating masking of the library staff, the defendant did not require members of the public to mask when on the premises and in fact specifically set forth a policy that patrons of the library who did not conform to the masking policy would be permitted to be on the premises. Following the mandate by the defendant, plaintiff immediately submitted a request for exemption from the masking mandate based upon her ‘strongly held moral, ethical and religious beliefs.”
The suit added the plaintiff went to work on Aug. 23, 2021, and did not comply with the masking mandate while waiting for a reply to her request for exemption.
“On Aug. 25, 2021, her immediate supervisor, Mary K. Harrison, sent her multiple letters related to her request for religious exemption, first indicating that there would be a meeting between the plaintiff and the author of the letter (Harrison) the same day at 10:30 a.m. Harrison then provided a second letter asking for a written explanation of why wearing protective covering is a religious infraction and cites to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission policy regarding accommodations of religious beliefs. Finally, Harrison at approximately 4:30 p.m. on Aug. 25, 2021, forwarded a letter purportedly authored by Roberta Green, Director of the Public Library for Union County, demanding a written answer from the plaintiff before she left for the day on Wednesday, Aug. 25, 2021,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff provided a written response within a few minutes of receiving the demand from Green, requesting additional time to provide a full response. On Aug. 26, 2021, Green directed the plaintiff to explain and justify her religious basis for her exemption request and directed her to work from home from Aug. 27, 2021 through Sept. 3, 2021, and if the issue of the requested religious exemption is not resolved, the plaintiff will be required to use her earned vacation time and personal time, but the plaintiff will not be permitted to be on the library premises without complying with the mask mandate.”
From there, on Sept. 1, 2021, the plaintiff requested an accommodation to work in another position, which was recently vacated by a previous employee which would not entail contact with anyone in the library or with patrons – but on Sept. 3, 2021, Green, as a representative of the defendant denied the plaintiff’s religious exemption and denied her requested accommodation.
“Green offered to allow the plaintiff to allow her to reduce her hours from a full-time employee to 15 hours per week, her benefits would remain in place only until the end of September 2021. On Sept. 7, 2021and Sept. 8, 2021, plaintiff worked remotely and at the end of the day on Sept. 8, 2021, without notice, her remote access was denied and her supervisor informed her that her access was removed. On Sept. 9, 2021, she went into the library and specifically asked Green if she was being terminated. After repeated requests for an answer, Green said she was being terminated as a result of her request for religious exemption to the mask policy,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff, believes and therefore avers, that she was fired only as a result of her Christian beliefs related to mask mandate. It is clear from the defendant’s conduct in firing a practicing Christian for allegedly violating her mask policy while not requiring others to wear a mask on the premise constitutes religious discrimination. A substantial, motivating or determinative factor in plaintiff’s termination was her religion.”
UPDATE
The Public Library for Union County filed a motion to dismiss the case on Feb. 5, countering that Laverty had not pled claims where relief could be granted.
“In terms of a straight claim for discrimination, plaintiff cannot claim that she was treated differently than other employees. The masking policy applied to all employees, Christian and non-Christian. Moreover, there are no allegations to even support her conclusory statements that she was treated differently than others. Accordingly, since the masking policy applied to all employees, she was not discriminated against on the basis of religion. Lastly, plaintiff’s complaint with regard to discrimination based upon treating employees differently based upon religion does not meet the standards set forth in Iqbal and Twombly since the complaint is nothing more than mere conclusory statements. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that this Honorable Court dismiss plaintiff’s causes of action for alleged violations of the PHRA and Title VII,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“The record, even at the motion to dismiss stage, amply demonstrates that the Library attempted to accommodate plaintiff. However, before even addressing the steps the Library took to accommodate plaintiff, it should be noted that given that plaintiff was not invoking a sincerely-held religious belief, since as set forth above, plaintiff’s refusal to wear a mask is not a sincerely-held religious belief. Despite that, the Library offered plaintiff the opportunity to work remotely, on a part-time basis, and plaintiff rejected this. Moreover, it must be noted that the masking policy only required masking when in public spaces and in proximity to co-workers. As such, the Library made a good faith effort to provide an accommodation. Before getting to the heart of this issue, it must be highlighted that plaintiff’s job was a Children’s Librarian, working with children, many of them not yet school age. As such, it is significant to point out that the FDA had not approved the COVID vaccine until October of 2021 for children between the ages of 5 and 11. Moreover, also more importantly for the age group of children from 6 months to 5 years, the FDA did not approve the COVID vaccine for this age group until June of 2022.”
The motioned continued that the Library’s masking requirement for employees “required masking when working in proximity to co-workers and in public spaces” and that while the plaintiff “references vaccines, in seeking her accommodation, she was never required to be vaccinated.”
Furthermore, the motion stated that “in terms of a burden, the entity at issue in this case is a library, a space open to the public.”
“In this instance, the specific patrons at issue were children who could not be vaccinated. As such, the only means by which the Library could mitigate the spread of COVID and offer programing for children being provided by plaintiff, was to require employees, such as plaintiff, who worked with these young children to wear a mask when in those spaces. In the absence of this policy, the Library could not provide programming for young children, and would be abandoning a critical component of its service to the community. And ultimately, the inability to provide the services to the community, its reason for existence, would be a substantial burden. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that plaintiff cannot establish a failure to accommodate claim, and her claims for such under Title VII and the PHRA should be dismissed,” the dismissal motion continued.
“It is respectfully submitted that plaintiff’s alleged basis for not complying with the Library’s COVID-19 mitigation policy is based upon her personal belief against masking. As has been established above, the refusal to wear a mask is not a sincerely-held religious belief that warrants protection. However, for purposes of evaluating the Equal Protection Clause, it must be noted that the policy applied to all employees. In addition, plaintiff has not alleged any intentional discrimination beyond conclusory statements. In this instance, plaintiff cannot show that the policy was applied with greater degree of severity against Christians since employees of all faiths (or even no faith) were required to wear a mask when in close proximity to co-workers and in public spaces. Accordingly, plaintiff cannot establish a claim that the Library violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and it respectfully requested that this count be dismissed.”
The motion concluded that the plaintiff “was provided an accommodation to work remotely on a part-time basis, but she refused to do so, and refused to wear a mask when working in proximity to co-workers and public spaces”, a refusal which “had come after she had previously abided by the Library’s masking policy.”
“Therefore, the decision to terminate plaintiff was not in retaliation for her engaging in protected activity. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that plaintiff’s count for retaliation under Title VII and the PHRA be dismissed,” the motion said.
On Feb. 22, plaintiff counsel filed a letter with the Court explaining the case had tentatively been settled, and a requested an order outlining that resolution.
“Please be advised that the parties have resolved the above-captioned case. The purpose of this letter is to notify Your Honor that the parties have resolved the matter and are in the process of finalizing the settlement agreement. The parties request dismissal of this matter without costs and without prejudice to the right of either party, upon good cause shown, to apply for reinstatement of the action within 60 days if settlement is not consummated,” the letter stated.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Matthew W. Brann granted that case closure the very same day.
“In light of Gregory A. Stapp, Esq.’s letter to the Court indicating that this matter has settled, it is hereby ordered that this action is dismissed without costs and without prejudice to the right of either party, upon good cause shown, to reinstate the action within 60 days if the settlement is not consummated. It is further ordered that the Court retains jurisdiction over the settlement agreement,” Brann said.
The plaintiff was represented by Gregory A. Stapp of Stapp Law, in Williamsport.
The defendant was represented by Russell S. Massey of Rawle & Henderson, in Blue Bell.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:23-cv-01983
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com