Nelson et al v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. et al
Filing
52
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. AND HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 44 ) - Signed by SENIOR JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 10/25/2024. DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINE S, INC. AND HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.'S MOTION TO PARTIALLY DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are given LEAVE TO AMEND consistent with the rulings set forth in this Order. LEAVE TO AMEND: Plaintiffs are given LEAVE TO AMEND and may file a Second Amended Complaint on or before Monday, December 16, 2024. The Second Amended Complaint must conform to the rulings contained in thi s Order. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is limited to the causes of action that were dismissed with leave to amend pursuant to this Order. Plaintiffs may not allege any new causes of action. Plaintiffs John Paul Kalei Bourgeois , Stephen Dangerfield, Pulelehua Knight, Scott Fong, Jr., Andrew Wolcott, MitchelleCarino, Travis Smith, Lyle Purugganan, Brooks Fujihara, Jr., James Robert Cabodol, Jr., Kellee Smith, Adrianne Vakauta Alicia Okumura, Ronin Burke, Sean Rodrigues, Michelle Tanabe, Lani Primacio, Kianna Chung, Bridget Lokelani Tully, Tracy Snoops, and Tracy Yamada Gillen Crystal Allen, Kellie Nalani Luke, Christopher Barboza, Derek Ichiyama, Mikiala Akau, Tatiana Johnson, Brittany Rego-Rodrigues, Aaron Nelson , and Colleen Goto are given LEAVE TO AMEND to state sufficient allegations to explain their religious beliefs and how practicing them conflicted with their employment duties. The First Amended Complaint is 391 pages long and con tains allegations for 162 different, individual Plaintiffs. Thirty of the Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient facts to state a religious accommodations claim. Given the complexity of the case and the length of the First Amended Complaint, Plainti ffs may not attach evidence to the Second Amended Complaint in an attempt to cure the deficient pleading as to some of the Plaintiffs. The Court will not allow pleading by incorporation or by exhibit in an attempt to circumvent the plausibility pl eading standard set forth in Twombly and Iqbal. Plaintiffs must allege sufficient facts in the Second Amended Complaint to plausibly state a claim for each individual Plaintiff. Failure to file a Second A mended Complaint on or before Monday, December 16, 2024, will result in automatic dismissal with prejudice of the 30 identified Plaintiffs' religious discrimination claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (eta)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
AARON NELSON; ABIGAEL ROANN B. )
RANADA; ADRIANNE VAKAUTA;
)
ALICIA OKUMURA; ALISSA PACARRO )
TUUMALO; ALVIN REINAUER; AMANDA )
LOPEZ; ANDREW DIAGO; ANDREW
)
WOLCOTT; ANGELA IRIS REICH;
)
ARIELLE CASSADY; ASHLYNNE
)
QUINSAAT; AYUMI Y. SIEVERTS;
)
BARBARA JEAN VIDINHA RICHARDS; )
BRENT BARGAMENTO; BRIAHNI’
)
MARIE ATISANOE; BRIDGET TULLY; )
BRIDGETT ZINCHUK; BRITTANY K. )
REGO-RODRIGUES; BROOKS
)
FUJIHARA,JR.; BRYAN DAGUIO;
)
CANDACE KRISTINE VIZCARRA
)
(GUTIERREZ); CARLA ESTIAMBA;
)
CAROL LAMSE; CHACY R. EVELAND )
III; CHAD MAKAIAU; CHARELLE
)
BEDFORD; CHELSEA MIHM; CHELSEA )
TEHANE WILLIAMS; CHRISTINA
)
OLIVE; CHRISTINE GOTO;
)
CHRISTMASEDNA STARKS (TUIFAGU); )
CHRISTOPHER BARBOZA;
)
CHRISTOPHER KAM; CINDY BURT;
)
COLLEEN GOTO; CRYSTAL K.E.
)
ALLEN; CYNDI R. MAYO-AKEO;
)
DANIELLE OLVERA; DARIN K.
)
MATSUNO; DAVID FISCHER; DAVID )
KURIHARA; DEAN SATO; DEBORAH
)
STALCUP; DEREK ICHIYAMA; DIANE )
VENTIMIGLIA; DINA ANGELES;
)
DOMINIQUE RANDAZZO; DORI
)
YAMADA; DOROTHY TAPPY-HIGA;
)
DWAYNE TUZON; ELISA THURMAN)
BEY; ELIZA KAHAWAII; ELIZABETH )
BACHRAN; ELIZABETH CHAPTON;
)
ELIZABETH STOUDT; ERIK BARTON; )
FELISHALYN MILLER; GEOFFREY
)
HANSON; GERALD W. SAN CLEMENTE; )
HEATHER LAFI; HEIDI CALA; HELEN )
Y. SALVANI; JACQUELINE ANN
)
LOVIN-YAP; JAMES CABODOL, JR.; )
JAMES EVERTS; JANICE KIM; JASON )
AKINA; JEFFREY P. ARANYOS; JENA )
ZARRO; JENNIFER SHIMATSU; JODI )
YOKOYAMA; JODY GOYA; JOHN P.K. )
1
CIV. NO. 23-00603 HG-WRP
BOURGEOUIS; JOHN PREGIL, JR.; )
JON KATAHARA; JONATHAN OPIE;
)
JOSEPH CASSADY; JOSIAH BURBAGE; )
JOVAN LAFONTAINE; JOY GARY; JOY )
SATELE; KANANI TABURA; KARLA L. )
DIAS WONG; KATHLEEN M. SWEET; )
KAWAHINEHA’AHEO KEOLANUI;
)
KE’ALAONALEHUA R. SOUZA;
)
KEHAUNANI MITSUKO KELIINOI
)
REIS; KEKAIKAHE’ELANI OLIVER; )
KELLEE SMITH; KELLIE LUKE;
)
KELLY YOUNG; KEOKI EDWIN K.
)
LIFTEE-KAU; KIANNA CHUN;
)
KIMBERLY TUZON; KORY PUTT;
)
KRISTA ALVAREZ; LANI PRIMACIO; )
LEIHAAHEO DIAS; LEILANI M.
)
SOON; LILINOE KAHALEPAUOLE)
BUSTAMANTE; LINDA V. AU; LORI )
SEBASTIAN; LYLE PURUGGANAN;
)
MAILE HERNANDEZ; MAILE M.
)
HUSSEY; MARC NISHIMURA;
)
MARIANNE MATA; MEDA J. WASHBURN )
TAKETA; MEGAN SKWIERCZYNSKI;
)
MEGUMI KEAN; MEHANA SALVANI;
)
MERRIBETH IONA; MICHAEL
)
ANDERSON; MICHAEL RYAN; MICHELE )
TANABE; MICHELLE NOLTIE;
)
MIKIALA AKAU; MILA PALENCIA;
)
MISTY CARVER; MITCHELLE CARINO; )
MONICA D. SMITH; MORIAH GOSNEY; )
NALEISHA LUCRISIA; NANETTE
)
SILVA; NICOLE HENRY; NICOLE
)
WIEDEMANN; PATRICIA CASTRO;
)
PENELOPE GEBAUER; PHILLIP
)
ROTHER; PONO ROBACK; PULELEHUA )
KNIGHT; RAELYNN BROAD-KELA;
)
RANETTE BAUTISTA; RONIN BURKE; )
SARAH PARKER; SATCHADANANDA
)
SLADE; SCOTT FONG, JR.; SEAN
)
RODRIGUES; SETEMA SAGAPOLUTELE; )
SHANA M. STALCUP; SHANNON
)
JACKSON; SIONA TEJADA; STEPHEN )
DANGERFIELD; TATIANA JOHNSON; )
TAUARII NAHALEA-MARAMA; TERRI )
MEDEIROS; TERRY YAMADA GILLEN; )
THECLA TAYLOR; THEODORA AUWAE; )
TORI DAGUIO; TRACI MILLER)
TRUONG; TRACIE RYAN; TRACY
)
BEAN; TRACY SNOOPS; TRAVIS
)
SMITH; URSULA BARTON; UTUMOE
)
2
PADILLA; WAINANI YOUNG; WILLIAM )
K. YOKOYAMA; WINNIE MENDIOLA; )
ZARINA KAMA,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.;
)
HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. AND HAWAIIAN
HOLDINGS, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
(ECF No. 44)
Plaintiffs are 162 individuals who have filed suit against
their employer or former employer Defendants Hawaiian Airlines,
Inc. and Hawaiian Holdings, Inc. (“the Hawaiian Airlines
Defendants”).
The lawsuit is related to the Hawaiian Airlines Defendants’
implementation of a vaccination policy in August 2021, in the
midst of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic.
The 162 individual Plaintiffs have elected to file one mass
action complaint that is nearly 400 pages long rather than file
an individual complaint for each person.
The First Amended Complaint identifies two groups of
Plaintiffs: “Religious Plaintiffs” and “Disability Plaintiffs.”
First, there are four counts of religious discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on
theories of failure to accommodate; disparate treatment;
disparate impact; and retaliation.
3
Second, there are four counts of disability discrimination
in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 based
on theories of disparate treatment and failure to accommodate;
retaliation; disparate impact; and perceived disability
discrimination.
The Hawaiian Airlines Defendants filed a Partial Motion to
Dismiss.
In their Motion, Defendants have identified 30 of the
162 Plaintiffs that they allege have failed to plausibly state a
claim for religious discrimination based on a failure to
accommodate in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.
Specifically, the Hawaiian Airlines Defendants assert that
the 30 Plaintiffs have not stated sufficient facts about the
purported conflict between their religious beliefs and the
Defendants’ COVID-19 policies.
DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. AND HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS,
INC.’S MOTION TO PARTIALLY DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF
No. 44) is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs are given LEAVE TO AMEND consistent with the
rulings set forth in this Order.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint.
No. 1).
On April 3, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
4
(ECF
Complaint.
(ECF No. 23).
On July 19, 2024, the Hawaiian Airlines Defendants filed a
Motion to Partially Dismiss First Amended Complaint.
(ECF No.
44).
On August 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition.
(ECF
No. 47).
On September 6, 2024, the Hawaiian Airlines Defendants filed
their Reply.
(ECF No. 48).
The Court elects to decide the Motion without a hearing
pursuant to District of Hawaii Local Rule 7.1(c).
BACKGROUND
According to the First Amended Complaint:
Plaintiffs are employees or former employees of the Hawaiian
Airlines Defendants.
(First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) at ¶ 2,
ECF No. 23).
In the Spring of 2020, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2,
known as “COVID-19,” spread rapidly throughout the world.
at ¶ 29).
(Id.
In response, the Hawaiian Airlines Defendants began
implementing mitigation procedures for their workforce, including
providing personal protective equipment such as masks and gloves.
(Id. at ¶ 30).
On December 1, 2020, the United States Food and Drug
Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization for the
Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to prevent the further spread of COVID-
5
19.
(Id. at ¶ 31).
One week later, the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine
received Emergency Use Authorization.
were subsequently approved for use.
(Id.)
Additional vaccines
(Id.)
On September 17, 2021, the Hawaiian Airlines Defendants
published their vaccination policy, which required all employees
to be vaccinated for COVID-19 by January 30, 2022.
(Id. at ¶
39).
According to Plaintiffs, “[a]lternatively, unvaccinated
employees were given the option to be placed on a one-year
involuntary leave of absence.”
(Id. at ¶ 41).
“[The Hawaiian
Airlines Defendants] also said that it would offer a ‘testing’
option during the months of November, December, and January for
those who did not want to take the vaccination but would like
more time to consider their decision” but according to
Plaintiffs, the Hawaiian Airlines Defendants informed them that
“the testing option would only be temporary.”
(Id. at ¶¶ 42-43).
The Hawaiian Airlines Defendants allowed employees to
request accommodations from receiving the COVID-19 vaccination
for religious and/or health reasons.
(Id. at ¶ 48).
Defendants
offered employees standard forms that could be completed and
returned to their Human Resources Department by October 1, 2021.
(Id. at ¶¶ 67, 70).
Plaintiffs claim they were denied reasonable accommodations
from the Hawaiian Airlines Defendants’ vaccination requirement.
The Hawaiian Airlines Defendants assert that 30 of the 162
6
Plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint have failed to
plausibly plead a claim for religious accommodations because they
have not identified any conflict between the vaccination policy
and their religious beliefs.
Plaintiffs oppose the Motion to Dismiss and request that the
Court review evidence that they attached to their Opposition.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss a complaint as a matter of law
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) where it
fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
When
considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must
presume all allegations of material fact to be true and draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.
v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998).
Pareto
Conclusory
allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to
defeat a motion to dismiss.
Id.
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.
U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.
Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 556 (2007)).
7
The complaint “must contain sufficient allegations of
underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing
party to defend itself effectively” and “must plausibly suggest
an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require
the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery
and continued litigation.”
AE ex rel. Hernandez v. Cnty. of
Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
ANALYSIS
I.
The Court May Not Consider Evidence On A Motion To Dismiss
As an initial matter, it is well-settled that district
courts generally may not consider material outside of the
complaint when assessing the sufficiency of the pleadings to
state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).
Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988,
998 (9th Cir. 2018).
There are two exceptions to the rule: (1)
the incorporation-by-reference doctrine and (2) judicial notice
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201.
Pursuant to the incorporation-by-reference doctrine, a
defendant may seek to incorporate a document into the complaint
if the plaintiff refers extensively to the document in the
pleading or the document forms the basis of plaintiff’s claim.
United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003).
Incorporation-by-reference is a judicially created doctrine that
8
allows a court to consider certain documents as though they are
part of the complaint itself.
Khoja, 899 F.3d at 1002.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that the
mere mention of the existence of a document is insufficient to
incorporate the contents of a document into the allegations in
the complaint.
Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1038
(9th Cir. 2010).
In their Opposition, Plaintiffs have attached 21 separate
exhibits consisting of multiple pages.
Plaintiffs request that
the Court review all of the attached evidence to determine
whether they have sufficiently pleaded a claim.
The evidence
consists of correspondence between Plaintiffs and the Defendants
regarding their requests for accommodations.
The exhibits attached to the Opposition are not incorporated
by reference and are not considered as part of the First Amended
Complaint.
1038.
Khoja, 899 F.3d at 1002; Coto Settlement, 593 F.3d at
In this case, the Plaintiffs elected to file their
Complaint as a mass action on behalf of 162 individual
Plaintiffs.
The First Amended Complaint does not incorporate by
reference each of the 162 individual’s requests for
accommodations from Defendants.
Plaintiffs cannot seek to
circumvent the pleading requirements of Iqbal and Twombly by
attaching evidence to their Opposition that they believe supports
their claims.
Plaintiffs must provide sufficient facts to
plausibly state a claim without relying on external evidence.
9
II.
The Plausibility Pleading Standard Set Forth In
Iqbal/Twombly Applies
In their Opposition, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the
plausibility standard for pleading a claim in federal court set
forth by the United States Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 556 (2007) does not apply.
Plaintiffs instead cite to a 2002 United States Supreme
Court case, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), for
the proposition that a plaintiff need not plead specific facts to
allege a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
(Pl.’s Opp. at p. 7, ECF No. 47).
Plaintiffs are incorrect.
no longer applies.
Notice pleading in federal court
It is well-established in the Ninth Circuit
that the allegations in a complaint must be “sufficiently
detailed” to give fair notice to the opposing party of the nature
of the claim.
2011).
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir.
The allegations must also be “sufficiently plausible”
such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be
subjected to the expense of discovery.
Id.
Swierkiewicz is no longer a valid pleading standard.
See Gage v. Mayo Clinic, 707 F.Supp.3d 870, 877-78 (D. Ariz.
2023); Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d. Cir.
2009) (finding that the United States Supreme Court’s holdings in
Twombly and Iqbal overruled its prior ruling in Swierkiewicz).
10
III. Religious Accommodation Pursuant To Title VII Of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964
The Hawaiian Airlines Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss
is limited to 30 of the 162 individual Plaintiffs.
Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss is also limited to
Plaintiffs’ claims based on purported failures to accommodate
Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
The Motion does not address Plaintiffs who
have alleged claims pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities
Act of 1990.
The claims subject to the Hawaiian Airlines Defendants’
Motion are claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which makes it unlawful for an employer to
discharge an employee because of his or her religion.
§ 2000e-2(a)(1).
42 U.S.C.
Specifically, the claims at issue here are
claims premised on the Hawaiian Airlines Defendants’ purported
failure to accommodate certain Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.
A.
Failure To Accommodate Claims Evaluated Under A TwoPart Test
Failure to accommodate claims premised on a plaintiff’s
religious beliefs are analyzed using a two-part, burden-shifting
framework.
Tiano v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679,
681 (9th Cir. 1998).
First, a plaintiff must plead a prima facie case of failure
to accommodate based on his religious beliefs.
11
Id.
Second, if an employee articulates a prima facie case, the
burden shifts to the employer to show that it could not
accommodate the employee without undue hardship on the conduct of
the employer’s business.
Id.; see 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(e)
(defining undue hardship).
An undue hardship defense also precludes liability premised
on any alleged failure to engage in the interactive process to
determine a reasonable accommodation in the context of a Title
VII discrimination claim.
F.Supp.3d
B.
McGinn v. Haw. Symphony Orchestra,
, 2024 WL 1348639, *14 (D. Haw. Mar. 29, 2024).
Plaintiff Must First Establish A Prima Facie Case Of
Failure To Accommodate
To assert a prima facie claim for failure to provide a
religious accommodation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, a plaintiff must allege that:
(1)
he has a bona fide religious belief, the practice of
which conflicts with an employment duty;
(2)
he informed his employer of the belief and conflict;
(3)
the employer subjected him to an adverse employment
action because of his inability to fulfill a job
requirement.
Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599 , 606 (9th Cir.
2004).
A plaintiff’s religious belief need not be consistent nor
rational to be protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.
Keene v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 2023 WL 3451687,
12
at *2 (9th Cir. May 15, 2023).
In evaluating a failure to accommodate claim, the courts do
not second-guess the reasonableness of a plaintiff’s religious
beliefs.
Bolden-Hardge v. Office of the Cal. State Controller,
63 F.4th 1215, 1223 (9th Cir. 2023).
A plaintiff, however, must
provide sufficient allegations to state the actual conflict
between his religious beliefs and the employment duty.
Id.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that a
plaintiff must do more than simply provide conclusory allegations
that there is a conflict with his religious beliefs in order to
state a claim.
Id. (citing Oklevueha Native Am. Church of Haw.,
Inc. v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2016)).
The
plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate an actual
conflict with his religious beliefs in order to state a claim.
Id.
IV.
Conclusory Allegations That A Plaintiff’s Religious Beliefs
Conflict With An Employment Duty Are Insufficient To State A
Claim
The Hawaiian Airlines Defendants have identified 30
Plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint who they argue have
failed to state a claim.
The Court here addresses them in three
separate categories:
First, the first collection of twelve Plaintiffs includes
John Paul Kalei Bourgeois; Stephen Dangerfield; Pulelehua Knight;
Scott Fong, Jr.; Andrew Wolcott; Mitchelle Carino; Travis Smith;
13
Lyle Purugganan; Brooks Fujihara, Jr.; James Robert Cabodol, Jr.;
Kellee Smith; and Adrianne Vakauta.
As to these twelve
Plaintiffs, the First Amended Complaint provides generalized
allegations about Christianity that fail to state an actual
conflict between Plaintiffs’ beliefs and the employer’s
vaccination policy.
Second, the second category includes nine Plaintiffs: Alicia
Okumura; Ronin Burke; Sean Rodrigues; Michelle Tanabe; Lani
Primacio; Kianna Chung; Bridget Lokelani Tully; Tracy Snoops; and
Tracy Yamada Gillen.
For these nine Plaintiffs, the First
Amended Complaint does not identify their religion or their
religious beliefs at all.
Third, the third category includes nine additional
Plaintiffs: Crystal Allen; Kellie Nalani Luke; Christopher
Barboza; Derek Ichiyama; Mikiala Akau; Tatiana Johnson; Brittany
Rego-Rodrigues; Aaron Nelson; and Colleen Goto.
For this group
of nine Plaintiffs, the First Amended Complaint contains
generalized, conclusory allegations about their beliefs that
their “body is temple” that are insufficient to state a religious
accommodations claim.
A.
Plaintiffs Must Allege The Conflict Between Their
Religious Beliefs And The Vaccination Policy And Merely
Stating That They Are “Christians” Is Insufficient To
State A Claim
Twelve of the 162 Plaintiffs (John Paul Kalei Bourgeois;
Stephen Dangerfield; Pulelehua Knight; Scott Fong, Jr.; Andrew
14
Wolcott; Mitchelle Carino; Travis Smith; Lyle Purugganan; Brooks
Fujihara, Jr.; James Robert Cabodol, Jr.; Kellee Smith; and
Adrianne Vakauta) state that they are Christians who requested an
accommodation from the Defendants’ vaccine policy based on their
religious beliefs.
(FAC at ¶¶ 120, 129, 140, 142, 152, 155, 158,
212, 215, 244, 268, 278, ECF No. 23).
Numerous district courts in the Ninth Circuit have held that
“vague expressions of sincerely held Christian beliefs alone
cannot serve as a blanket excuse for avoiding all unwanted
employment obligations.”
Kather v. Asante Health Sys., 2023 WL
4865533, at *3 (D. Or. July 28, 2023); see Gage v. Mayo Clinic,
2023 WL 3230986, at *2-*3 (D. Ariz. May 3, 2023).
The twelve Plaintiffs identify as Christian but “fail to
explain how practicing [their] Christian beliefs actually
conflicted with the employment requirement to take the COVID-19
vaccine.”
Kamrath v. Addictions Recovery Ctr., Inc., 2024 WL
942092, *2 (D. Or. Mar. 5, 2024).
General references to
Christianity do not meet the fairly minimal burden at the
pleading stage to demonstrate an actual conflict with an
employer’s vaccination requirement.
Id.; see also Moli v. King
Cnty., 2024 WL 1860184, *3-*4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 29, 2024).
As explained by the Court in Bartholomew v. State of
Washington, 693 F.Supp.3d 1107, 1114 n.4 (W.D. Wash. 2023),
“considering that not all Christian denominations may maintain
the same beliefs, stating that one is a Christian does not
15
identify the bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an
employment requirement.”
Plaintiffs John Paul Kalei Bourgeois, Stephen Dangerfield,
Pulelehua Knight, Scott Fong, Jr., Andrew Wolcott, Mitchelle
Carino, Travis Smith, Lyle Purugganan, Brooks Fujihara, Jr.,
James Robert Cabodol, Jr., Kellee Smith, and Adrianne Vakauta are
given LEAVE TO AMEND to state sufficient allegations to explain
their religious beliefs and how practicing them actually
conflicted with their employment duties.
B.
Plaintiffs Must Identify Their Religious Beliefs
Because Generalized Opposition To Vaccination Is
Insufficient To State A Title VII Claim
An employee’s complaint must provide sufficient information
about the nature of the employee’s religious beliefs in order to
state a claim for Title VII religious discrimination.
Bartholomew, 693 F.Supp.3d at 1114.
Nine of the 162 Plaintiffs (Alicia Okumura; Ronin Burke;
Sean Rodrigues; Michelle Tanabe; Lani Primacio; Kianna Chung;
Bridget Lokelani Tully; Tracy Snoops; and Tracy Yamada Gillen)
provide mere threadbare allegations that they were denied
religious accommodations.
The nine Plaintiffs fail to even
identify their religion in the First Amended Complaint.
They do
not state what their religious beliefs are or how they are
actually in conflict with the Defendants’ policy.
132, 160, 193, 205, 245, 251, ECF No. 23).
16
(FAC at ¶¶
The requirement that Title VII plaintiffs asserting
religious discrimination provide more than a recitation of the
elements of a prima facie case “is not an empty formalism.”
Medlin v. Peacehealth, 2024 WL 712692, *3 (D. Or. Feb. 21, 2024)
(quoting Gamon v. Shriners Hosp. for Children, 2023 WL 7019980,
at *3 (D. Or. Oct. 25, 2023).
Courts must ensure that a
plaintiff’s claim is truly religious in nature because Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect secular
preferences.
See Bordeaux v. Lions Gate Entertainment, Inc., 703
F.Supp.3d 1117, 1132-33 (C.D. Cal. 2023) (citing Mason v. Brown
Cent. Sch. Dist., 851 F.2d 47, 51-52 (2d Cir. 1988)).
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) provided guidance to employers navigating claimed
religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccination policies, and it
explained that “although Title VII prohibits employment
discrimination based on religion, an employee’s request for an
exemption from a COVID-19 vaccination mandate can be denied on
the ground that the employee’s belief is not truly religious in
nature.”
Doe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 19 F.4th 1173,
1180 (9th Cir. 2021).
Objections to the COVID-19 vaccine that were purely based on
social, political, or economic views, or personal preferences, or
other nonreligious concerns are not protected by Title VII.
See
Ruscitti v. Legacy Health, 2023 WL 8007620, *2 (D. Or. Sept. 27,
2023).
17
Plaintiffs Alicia Okumura, Ronin Burke, Sean Rodrigues,
Michelle Tanabe, Lani Primacio, Kianna Chung, Bridget Lokelani
Tully, Tracy Snoops, and Tracy Yamada Gillen have not provided
sufficient allegations to demonstrate that they had bona fide
religious beliefs and that the practice of such beliefs actually
conflicted with their employment duties.
Their conclusory
allegations that they had unidentified religious views and that
such views conflicted with Defendants’ vaccination policy are
insufficient to state a claim.
Gamon, 2023 WL 7019980, at *2
(collecting cases).
Plaintiffs Alicia Okumura, Ronin Burke, Sean Rodrigues,
Michelle Tanabe, Lani Primacio, Kianna Chung, Bridget Lokelani
Tully, Tracy Snoops, and Tracy Yamada Gillen are given LEAVE TO
AMEND to state sufficient allegations to explain their religious
beliefs and how practicing them actually conflicted with their
employment duties.
C.
Generalized Allegations About Bodily Integrity Are
Insufficient To State A Religious Accommodations Claim
Pursuant To Title VII Of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
In addition to the 21 Plaintiffs who have only provided
conclusory allegations about their religious beliefs, the
Hawaiian Airlines Defendants have identified nine additional
Plaintiffs who have made conclusory allegations based on beliefs
about “bodily integrity” or beliefs that their “body is a
temple.”
18
The nine Plaintiffs (Crystal Allen; Kellie Nalani Luke;
Christopher Barboza; Derek Ichiyama; Mikiala Akau; Tatiana
Johnson; Brittany Rego-Rodrigues; Aaron Nelson; Colleen Goto)
generally claim that their bodies are created by God, that their
“bodies are a temple,” or that God provides all health and
healing.
(FAC at ¶¶ 123, 124, 137, 146, 153, 186, 191, 206, 279,
ECF No. 23).
Based on the conclusory allegations, the Court is unable to
determine whether the nine Plaintiffs’ claims are actually
religious.
The nine Plaintiffs have not specifically identified their
belief systems and have not identified any element of their
religious belief systems that conflicted with Defendants’
vaccination policies.
Craven v. Shriners Hospitals for Children,
2024 WL 21557, *3 (D. Or. Jan. 2, 2024).
Bald allegations that
vaccination would violate a plaintiff’s religious beliefs are
insufficient to state a claim.
McCune v. Asante Rogue Regional
Med. Ctr., 2024 WL 3290348, *4-*5 (D. Or. Jul. 3, 2024); Bulek v.
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 2024 WL 1436134, *3 (D. Or. Apr. 3,
2024).
In Riser v. St. Charles Health Systems, Inc., 2024 WL
2864405, *4 (D. Or. Jun. 6, 2024), a plaintiff alleged that she
believed that “the COVID-19 vaccine violates the command to offer
her body as a living sacrifice to God and violates God’s command
not to contaminate her body.”
The district court ruled that the
19
plaintiff’s vague references to God and Christianity were
insufficient to state a claim based on a failure to accommodate
her religious beliefs.
Id.
The district court further reasoned
that it appeared that the plaintiff’s reasoning was not actually
religious or based on the Bible or another religious tenet but
based on a medical judgment that vaccines were harmful.
Id. at
*5.
Just as in Riser, several of the nine Plaintiffs here made
vague references to Christianity in their claim that their “body
is a temple,” but as explained above, such vague references are
insufficient to state a claim for religious accommodation.
Kather, 2023 WL 4865533, at *3; see Gage, 2023 WL 3230986, at *2;
Kamrath, 2024 WL 942092, at *2; Bartholomew, 693 F.Supp.3d at
1114 n.4.
Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations that they refused
vaccination because of their beliefs about bodily integrity are
insufficient to determine whether there was an actual conflict
with a religious belief or if the Plaintiffs were motivated by a
medical or healthy living practice.
Thornton v. Ipsen Biopharm.,
Inc., 2023 WL 7116739, at *4 (D. Mass. Oct. 26, 2023).
The nine Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient facts to
determine the conflict with their religious beliefs, to evaluate
if their religious beliefs prevent them from receiving any
medical treatment at all, or to understand the tenet of their
beliefs that allegedly prevents them from receiving the
20
particular COVID-19 vaccinations at issue in this case.
As explained by the District Court in Moli v. King County,
2024 WL 1860184, *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 29, 2024), “[w]hile the
Court fully credits [their] belief that [their] body is to be
cherished and protected as a reflection of and temple to [their]
deity, there is no indication that this belief compels [them] to
reject any particular medical intervention, injection, or foreign
substance.”
Here, there are no particular facts to describe the
actual conflict between the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs and the
vaccinations at issue.
F.Supp.3d
See Weiss v. Permanente Med. Group, Inc.,
, 2024 WL 4353006, *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2024)
(explaining that generic explanations of a religious conflict are
insufficient to state a claim because they would result in a
limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted obligations).
Both the Court and the Defendants are left guessing as to
the basis for Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs and the actual
conflict given their bare recitals about bodily integrity.
Id.
Without sufficient facts, it is not clear that Plaintiffs’ antivaccination beliefs are religious in nature and are actually
protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Trinh v.
Shriners Hosps. for Children, 2023 WL 7525228, * 10 (D. Or. Oct.
23, 2023).
Plaintiffs Crystal Allen, Kellie Nalani Luke, Christopher
Barboza, Derek Ichiyama, Mikiala Akau, Tatiana Johnson, Brittany
Rego-Rodrigues, Aaron Nelson, and Colleen Goto are given LEAVE TO
21
AMEND to state sufficient allegations to explain their religious
beliefs and how practicing them actually conflicted with their
employment duties.
CONCLUSION
DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. AND HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS,
INC.’S MOTION TO PARTIALLY DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF
No. 44) is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs are given LEAVE TO AMEND consistent with the
rulings set forth in this Order.
LEAVE TO AMEND:
Plaintiffs are given LEAVE TO AMEND and may file a Second Amended
Complaint on or before Monday, December 16, 2024. The Second
Amended Complaint must conform to the rulings contained in this
Order.
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is limited to the causes of
action that were dismissed with leave to amend pursuant to this
Order. Plaintiffs may not allege any new causes of action.
Plaintiffs John Paul Kalei Bourgeois, Stephen Dangerfield,
Pulelehua Knight, Scott Fong, Jr., Andrew Wolcott, Mitchelle
Carino, Travis Smith, Lyle Purugganan, Brooks Fujihara, Jr.,
James Robert Cabodol, Jr., Kellee Smith, Adrianne Vakauta Alicia
Okumura, Ronin Burke, Sean Rodrigues, Michelle Tanabe, Lani
Primacio, Kianna Chung, Bridget Lokelani Tully, Tracy Snoops, and
Tracy Yamada Gillen Crystal Allen, Kellie Nalani Luke,
Christopher Barboza, Derek Ichiyama, Mikiala Akau, Tatiana
Johnson, Brittany Rego-Rodrigues, Aaron Nelson, and Colleen Goto
are given LEAVE TO AMEND to state sufficient allegations to
explain their religious beliefs and how practicing them
conflicted with their employment duties.
The First Amended Complaint is 391 pages long and contains
allegations for 162 different, individual Plaintiffs. Thirty of
the Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient facts to state a
religious accommodations claim. Given the complexity of the case
and the length of the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs may not
attach evidence to the Second Amended Complaint in an attempt to
22
cure the deficient pleading as to some of the Plaintiffs. The
Court will not allow pleading by incorporation or by exhibit in
an attempt to circumvent the plausibility pleading standard set
forth in Twombly and Iqbal.
Plaintiffs must allege sufficient facts in the Second Amended
Complaint to plausibly state a claim for each individual
Plaintiff.
Failure to file a Second Amended Complaint on or before Monday,
December 16, 2024, will result in automatic dismissal with
prejudice of the 30 identified Plaintiffs’ religious
discrimination claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 25, 2024, Honolulu, Hawaii.
td tJudge
Aaron Nelson et. al., v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., et al.; Civil
No. 23-00603 HG-WRP; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES,
INC. AND HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND (ECF No. 44)
23
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?