Silver Cross Hospital in New Lenox, Illinois, faces a federal lawsuit containing allegations that the employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by denying a religious accommodation to an employee who opposed the COVID-19 vaccine based on religious beliefs.

The employee, a certified surgical technologist, requested a religious exemption from the hospital's COVID-19 vaccine mandate in August 2021. The hospital denied the request and terminated her employment in November 2021.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges the hospital could have accommodated the employee without undue hardship and that the termination constituted retaliation.

The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief to prevent similar conduct in the future.

The EEOC position is that vaccination requirements are permissible but must comply with federal protections for religious accommodation and retaliation.

Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-silver-cross-hospital-over-vaccine-mandate

Commentary

In the above source, the EEOC alleges that a hospital violated Title VII by denying a religious exemption to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate and terminating the employee.

Several courts have recently found in favor of healthcare employers who enforced vaccine mandates. Several others have sided with employees. Before making a decision, employers are always encouraged to seek counsel.

Healthcare employers can have policies and procedures for managing exemptions from health-based policies:

   · Adopt a written vaccination policy that expressly recognizes and explains Title VII religious accommodation rights and the U.S. Supreme Court's Groff v. DeJoy standard of "substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of an employer's particular business". Accommodations are always determined on a case-by-case basis.

   · Implement a standardized accommodation request form that prompts employees to describe any conflicts with the vaccine requirement.

   · Train HR and managers to recognize religious accommodation requests, avoid dismissive language, and refrain from retaliatory conduct such as threats or schedule changes tied to the request.

   · Conduct and document an individualized analysis that considers job duties, patient contact, staffing levels, and available alternatives such as masking, testing, reassignment, or remote work.

   · Apply the policy consistently across similar roles and shifts to avoid evidence of unequal treatment among employees seeking religious exemptions.

   · Involve legal counsel when denying an exemption, especially in high-risk roles, to confirm the Groff analysis and avoid retaliation allegations.

   · Communicate decisions respectfully in writing, explaining the accommodation granted or the specific reasons for denial and the appeal process, if any.

The final takeaway is that healthcare employers should always consider a request for a reasonable accommodation; that such determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, and that they should seek legal counsel in interpreting the Groff standard.