A Massachusetts federal court ruled recently that a hospital worker was not exempt on religious grounds from a mandatory flu immunization requirement for direct patient-care positions.
Leontine Robinson, who handled patient intake and registration in the emergency room, argued that the mandatory vaccination violated her religious beliefs as a Muslim and that she should be exempted. The hospital declined, but offered her time to seek another position within the hospital and assistance in locating such a position.
When Robinson was unable to secure a new job, the hospital designated her as a voluntary termination which would allow her to reapply for future jobs at the hospital. Robinson then sued the hospital for religious discrimination.
Vaccination Policies Gets a Shot in the Arm
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. The threshold for proving undue hardship in religious accommodation matters is rather low. The employer need only show that the requested accommodation caused more than a minimal burden on the business. Examples of possible accommodations include flexible scheduling, redistribution of some job tasks or modifications of policies or procedures.
In this case, the judge ruled that Robinson’s request to be permitted to continue doing her job without the vaccination was an undue hardship. The judge explained that health care employees are at high risk for exposure to influenza and for passing it on to vulnerable patients. Allowing Robinson to keep doing her job without the vaccine could have placed vulnerable patients at risk and there simply was no practical way to insure that she worked only with the less vulnerable patients.
The Court further noted that the hospital provided a reasonable accommodation by encouraging Robinson to transfer and offering assistance in doing so. Although Robinson claimed that they could have done more to help her, the judge explained that there was no legal duty to create a new job to accommodate her. The hospital’s efforts in granting time off, facilitating her job search and preserving her ability to reapply by calling her termination voluntary all contributed to the conclusion that the hospital met its obligation under the law to accommodate Robinson.
Bottom Line
This decision bolsters the legitimacy of mandatory vaccination programs for employees with direct patient care responsibilities. It also reemphasizes the rather minimal burden of reasonable accommodation for religious needs, in contrast to the stringent requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Ultimately, this case is also a victory for hospital patients who benefit from a little more protection from contagion by those who are hired to care for them.