On The Docket
David B. Brushwood, BSPharm, JD
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 global pandemic, many important lessons have emerged. Among these lessons are legal rulings related to pharmacist rights and responsibilities. A federal court in Illinois recently reviewed a lawsuit by a pharmacist who sued the hospital where she was formerly employed after she was fired for refusing to be vaccinated for COVID-19.
When COVID-19 vaccines became available, the hospital adopted a mandatory staff vaccination policy. The policy included an exemption due to medical conditions or sincerely held religious beliefs. The exemption was extended only to staff members whose duties could be performed on a fully remote basis.
The pharmacist requested an exemption based on her religious beliefs. The pharmacist’s request concluded with the statement, “I am fully immunized as the good Lord intended.” The hospital refused the exemption because it “would compromise workplace safety, infringe upon the rights of our workforce, patients, and visitors, and otherwise impose an undue hardship.”
A hearing officer recommended that the pharmacist be terminated. The hospital followed this recommendation. The pharmacist filed a lawsuit against the hospital alleging a denial of “a reasonable religious accommodation” under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. The hospital moved the court for dismissal of the lawsuit.
Rationale
The judge explained that a Title VII claim alleging the failure to accommodate a religious belief must first establish that the claimant’s practice is religious in nature and that it conflicts with the employer’s requirements. The judge did not challenge the pharmacist’s assertion of religious beliefs, noting that “courts should avoid putting themselves in the impossible position of trying to define religious legitimacy and viewpoint sufficiency.” The judge accepted the pharmacist’s religious beliefs as genuine.
The judge turned to the hospital’s undue hardship defense. The judge considered the pharmacist’s argument that the hospital could not establish an undue hardship because the hospital “could have simply maintained the status quo of masking and social distancing, even after a vaccine became available.”
The judge rejected this argument as unpersuasive. The judge explained that the pharmacist “worked in a room with approximately 60 other health care workers.” These health care professionals were “at increased risk of infecting patients, including individuals who were medically vulnerable, as well as co-workers who themselves worked with patients.”
The judge concluded that the hospital could not have reasonably accommodated the pharmacist’s exemption from the mandatory vaccination policy without incurring substantial increased costs related both to staffing and to patient care. The judge granted the hospital’s motion for dismissal of the lawsuit.
Takeaways
Pharmacists and other employed health care professionals have the right to exercise their religious beliefs free from interference. This is a fundamental constitutional right. But constitutional rights are not self-enforcing. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act provides an enforcement mechanism for people who believe that their constitutional rights have been infringed. Religion is one of the legally protected rights. The law also provides protection from discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin.
Establishing a protected right does not guarantee continued employment. An employer may assert the defense of undue hardship to avoid liability for interference with a protected right. The inability to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship for the employer’s business is an explicit affirmative defense to an employee’s religious discrimination claim.
In this case, the judge concluded that the protection of patients and the protection of professional colleagues from an unvaccinated pharmacist could not be accomplished without undue hardship to the hospital. It is a balancing of interests. Pharmacists have rights. Patients and other health care professionals have rights also. Pharmacists have responsibilities, as do patients and other health care professionals. In lawsuits such as this one, judges generally conclude that the balance tips in favor of pharmacist responsibility to honor the rights of patients and professional colleagues. ■