Quintal v. Department of Developmental Services et al

Filing 33

Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM & ORDER entered. The Court ALLOWS Defendants'motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 21 ). (Karasek)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
___________________________________

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL
)
SERVICES and EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
)
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
KIMBERLY QUINTAL,

Civil Action
No. 23-10692-PBS

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
January 3, 2025
Saris, D.J.
INTRODUCTION
Kimberly

Quintal

alleges

that

her

former

employer,

the

Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services (“DDS”) within
the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (“EOHHS”),
discriminated against her because of her religion by failing to
accommodate

her

request

for

a

religious

exemption

to

its

Vaccination Verification Policy and terminating her employment for
refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine. She asserts a claim under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)
seeking damages, attorney’s fees, and reinstatement (Dkt. 1 at
22). DDS and EOHHS (“Defendants”) now move for summary judgment
(Dkt. 21).
1

After

hearing,

the

ALLOWS

Court

Defendants’

motion

for

summary judgment (Dkt. 21).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are drawn from Defendants’ Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts (Dkt. 23). Quintal did not dispute any
of the facts.
I.

Quintal’s Employment with DDS
In the fall of 2021, Quintal was employed as a Program Monitor

out of the Plymouth Area Office of DDS. DDS is the Massachusetts
agency responsible for delivering specialized services and support
programs

for

adults

and

children

with

intellectual

and

developmental disabilities. As a Program Monitor, Quintal was
required to work in area offices to monitor the wellbeing of DDS
residents. Quintal worked as a hybrid employee, spending at a
minimum two days a week in the central office with around five
other people. She was responsible for interviewing and gathering
information through in-person, onsite visits to DDS congregate
care settings to determine the extent and the validity of alleged
non-compliance with DDS regulations and policies. Onsite visits
involved interviewing residents and staff in congregate care homes
with about three to four residents and three to four staff members
who provide round-the-clock care.

2

II.

The Executive Order

On August 19, 2021, Governor Baker issued Executive Order 595
(“EO 595”). EO 595 highlighted the importance of the COVID-19
vaccine and ordered all executive department employees to show
that they received the COVID-19 vaccination by October 17, 2021.
EO 595 also required state agencies to implement “a procedure to
allow limited exemptions from the vaccination requirement where a
reasonable accommodation can be reached for any employee who is
unable to receive COVID-19 vaccination due to medical disability
or . . . a sincerely held religious belief.” Dkt. 23-2 at 3-4. In
compliance
Division

with
for

Governor
the

Baker’s

Executive

order,

Branch

the

Human

issued

a

Resources

Vaccination

Verification Policy for all executive agencies (including DDS).
On September 17, 2021, using an exemption request form,
Quintal requested an exemption based on her religious views.
Quintal stated in part:
I seek God’s will in all areas of my life through prayer
and the discernment He bestows upon me. I had Covid and
recovered due to the healthy immune system God has given
me. I am protected from getting Covid due to this natural
immunity and my reliance upon God’s protection. I have
prayed and asked God whether I should get the Covid shot
and I have received a clear word from the Lord that I
must not get the shot.
Dkt. 23-6 at 2.
To review Quintal’s exemption request EOHHS Labor Relations
Coordinator

considered

Quintal’s
3

job

description

and

work

location, spoke to Quintal’s manager and discussed with Quintal
her religious beliefs. In this discussion Quintal requested that
she be permitted to perform her in-person work duties wearing
personal protective equipment (“PPE”) and social distancing and
that she be tested periodically for the virus. Following the
assessment,

both

EOHHS

and

DDS

determined

that

granting

a

vaccination exemption to Quintal would pose an undue hardship and
that there were no alternative accommodations that would allow
Quintal to perform the essential functions of her job. As a result,
DDS terminated Quintal on December 2, 2021.
III. COVID-19
COVID-19 is the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It is
infectious and contagious and can cause hospitalization and death.
By the time Governor Baker issued EO 595 on August 19, 2021, there
had

been

approximately

18,000

deaths

from

COVID-19

in

Massachusetts. By January 11, 2022, the Massachusetts Department
of Public Health confirmed 20,275 deaths due to COVID-19. Dkt. 231 ¶ 13. COVID-19 is and was considered to be a vaccine preventable
disease, with widespread vaccination as the most effective method
of limiting the spread of COVID-19. Id. ¶¶ 14-15.
As of the fall of 2021, “experts did not know or understand
the full implications and/or consequences of infection by COVID19.” Id. ¶ 12. In the fall of 2021, a COVID-19 outbreak would have
curtailed normal operations at DDS facilities, created an extra
4

burden of caring for ill residents, and caused a reduction in staff
availability. Dkt. 23 ¶ 44. During that time, staff absences due
to sickness caused DDS to temporarily shut down or combine programs
and to use forced overtime to ensure staffing levels. Id. ¶ 45.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A material
fact is one that “might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). A genuine dispute of material fact exists where “the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for
the nonmoving party.” Id. The Court must view the record in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party and make all reasonable
inferences in that party’s favor. See O’Connor v. Steeves, 994
F.2d 905, 907 (1st Cir. 1993).
DISCUSSION
I.

Title VII Standard
Title VII prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing] against

any individual . . . because of [her] . . . religion.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2(a)(1). “[T]he First Circuit applies a two-part framework
to

religious

discrimination

claims

under

Title

VII.

First,

[Quintal] must make her prima facie case that a bona fide religious
5

practice conflicts with an employment requirement and was the
reason for the adverse employment action.” Cloutier v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126, 133 (1st Cir. 2004). “In order to
establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination based on
a failure to accommodate, [Quintal] must show that ‘(1) a bona
fide religious practice conflicts with an employment requirement,
(2) . . . she brought the practice to the [employer’s] attention,
and (3) the religious practice was the basis for the adverse
employment decision.’” EEOC v. Unión Independiente de la Autoridad
de Acueductos y Alcantarillados de P.R., 279 F.3d 49, 55 (1st Cir.
2002) (quoting EEOC v. United Parcel Serv., 94 F.3d 314, 317 (7th
Cir. 1996)). Second, “if [Quintal] establishes her prima facie
case, the burden then shifts to the employer to show that it
offered a reasonable accommodation or, if it did not offer an
accommodation,

that

doing

so

would

have

resulted

in

undue

hardship.” Cloutier, 390 F.3d at 133.
II.

Prima Facie Case of Religious Discrimination
Defendants argue that Quintal fails to establish a prima facie

case of religious discrimination because Quintal’s “stated reasons
for her objection to the COVID-19 vaccine focuse[d] on medical,
health,

and

lifestyle

reasons,

which

are

personal

and

not

religious.” Dkt. 22 at 8. However, Quintal asserts that “as a
Christian she had prayed and sought discernment about the COVID19 vaccine, and relied on God’s protection and her healthy immune
6

system.” Dkt. 27 at 2. Religious beliefs protected by Title VII do
not

need

to

be

“acceptable,

logical,

consistent,

or

comprehensible.” Unión Independiente, 279 F.3d at 56 (quoting
Thomas v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 714
(1981)).
Defendants’ argument that Quintal’s objection to the COVID19 vaccination is “personal and not religious” is not persuasive.
“[J]udicial inquiry into the sincerity of a person’s religious
belief ‘must be handled with a light touch, or judicial shyness.’”
Davis v. Fort Bend County, 765 F.3d 480, 486 (5th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Tagore v. United States, 735 F.3d 324, 328 (5th Cir.
2013)). A court “must refuse to dissect religious tenets just
‘because the believer[’s] . . . beliefs are not articulated with
the clarity and precision that a more sophisticated person might
employ.’” A.A. ex rel. Betenbaugh v. Needville Indep. Sch. Dist.,
611 F.3d 248, 261 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Thomas, 450 U.S. at
715). Quintal stated that she “received a clear word from the Lord
that I must not get the shot.” Dkt. 23-6 at 2. Whether Quintal’s
belief is a true religious tenet is “not open to question.” Davis,
765 F.3d at 485 (quoting Moussazadeh v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just.,
703 F.3d 781, 790 (5th Cir. 2012)). Her exemption request was
couched in strong language regarding her belief in God and her
religious following.

7

Drawing all reasonable inferences in Quintal’s favor, the
Court concludes that a jury could find that Quintal’s refusal to
get a vaccine was based on a sincere religious belief and that
Defendants were aware of this belief.
III. Undue Burden
The burden now shifts to Defendants to show that they offered
Quintal

a

reasonable

accommodation

or

that

providing

such

accommodation would have resulted in undue hardship for the agency.
See Unión Independiente, 279 F.3d at 55. Here, it is undisputed
that Defendants did not offer Quintal any accommodation (Dkt. 23
¶ 71), so the analysis focuses on whether accommodating Quintal’s
vaccine exemption request would impose an undue hardship.
A successful undue hardship defense requires the employer to
show that “the burden of granting an accommodation would result in
substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its
particular business.” Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447, 470 (2023).
Undue hardship considerations “include not only direct economic
costs, but indirect ones related to health and safety.” Together
Emps. v. Mass Gen. Brigham Inc., 573 F. Supp. 3d 412, 435 (D. Mass.
2021), aff’d, 32 F.4th 82 (1st Cir. 2022). In evaluating whether
an employer has established an undue hardship, courts consider
“the context of the particular employer’s business,” “the nature
of operations,” “direct economic costs,” and “indirect costs” such
as health or safety. Antredu v. Mass. Dep’t of Youth Servs., 729
8

F. Supp. 3d 76, 84 (D. Mass. 2024) (quoting Together Emps., 573 F.
Supp. 3d at 435).
In similar circumstances, numerous courts have held that
providing a vaccine exemption would create undue hardship. Does 16 v. Mills, 16 F.4th 20, 36 (1st Cir. 2021)(holding “hospitals
need not provide [a COVID-19 vaccination] exemption . . . because
doing so would cause them to suffer undue hardship”); Antredu, 729
F. Supp. 3d at 84 (holding that a Group Worker’s request to remain
unvaccinated would pose an undue hardship to the Massachusetts
Department of Youth Services due to the Group Workers’ close
contact with colleagues and clients and essential job function of
restraining youth); Isaac v. Exec. Off. of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 22-11745-RGS, 2023 WL 8544987, at *2-3 (D. Mass. Dec. 11,
2023), appeal dismissed, No. 23-2065 (1st Cir. Feb. 22, 2024);
Haley v. Exec. Off. of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-11691-RGS,
2024 WL 1836480, at *1-2 (D. Mass. Apr. 26, 2024), appeal docketed,
No. 24-1450 (1st Cir. May 15, 2024); see also Howe v. Mass. Dep’t
of Corr., No. 4:22-cv-40119-MRG, 2024 WL 3536830, at *7 (D. Mass.
July 25, 2024) (stating that lawsuits are “not the forum to
retroactively litigate the decisions of public, democraticallyelected officials who acted based on guidance from scientific
experts to deal with an unprecedented emergency situation”).
As an accommodation, Quintal requested that DDS permit her to
perform her in-person work duties wearing PPE and social distancing
9

and to be tested periodically for the virus in lieu of getting
vaccinated for COVID-19. Dkt. 23 ¶ 66. Because visiting congregate
care homes requires close social interaction, Defendants assert
that absent vaccination, Quintal would pose “an unsafe risk of
transmission of COVID into the vulnerable resident and staff
population.” Dkt. 23 ¶ 71.
To meet the burden of establishing undue hardship, Defendants
rely on the affidavit of Lawrence Madoff, MD, the Medical Director
of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health’s Bureau of
Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences. Dr. Madoff states that
“[t]he most effective method for preventing the spread of COVID19 was (and is) widespread vaccination of a given population.”
Dkt.

23-1

¶

15.

Additionally,

Dr.

Madoff

asserts

that

“[u]nvaccinated individuals are (and have always been) at much
higher risk of infection, serious illness, and death, and therefore
at much higher risk of transmitting COVID-19.” Id. ¶ 20. Admitting
that vaccinated individuals may still get sick, Dr. Madoff points
out

that

breakthrough

cases

are

generally

less

severe

for

vaccinated individuals. Id. ¶ 22. Dr. Madoff goes on to explicitly
state that “without vaccinations, residents and staff at EOHHS and
DDS, as well as members of the public, would be at significantly
greater risk of contracting COVID-19.” Id. ¶ 28.
In opposition, Quintal challenges the assertion that COVID19 vaccines are effective in preventing infection and transmission
10

of COVID-19. Dkt. 27 at 11. Quintal does not submit any expert
evidence. Instead, she relies on Dr. Madoff’s deposition testimony
where he was asked if it is true that “if a person becomes fully
vaccinated against COVID-19[,] that person can still contract
COVID-19.” Dkt. 27-1 at 30. Dr. Madoff not only asserted during
this deposition that a person can still contract COVID-19 if
vaccinated, but in a coauthored paper, he stated that “transmission
to and from vaccinated individuals is common in some settings.”
Dkt. 27 at 9. Furthermore, Dr. Madoff stated that he did not know
the risk of a fully vaccinated person contracting COVID-19 and
that that question “is answered at the population level” only.
Dkt. 27-1 at 23.
While

it

is

true

that

vaccinated

individuals

can

still

contract and transmit COVID-19, the undisputed expert testimony is
that vaccinated individuals are still better protected against
serious illness or death. Dkt. 23-1 ¶ 19. Defendants present a
persuasive argument that lessening the risk of serious illness or
death from the COVID-19 disease reduces the operational impact on
both EOHHS and DDS. Id. ¶ 22. At the time of Quintal’s termination,
DDS suffered from staffing shortages, caused by employees who
contracted the COVID-19 infection.
Taking into account the increased staffing shortages, the
vulnerable population Quintal and her colleagues worked with, and
the severity of the COVID-19 illness for unvaccinated people at
11

the time, Defendants have met their burden of showing that allowing
Quintal’s vaccination exemption would impose an undue hardship on
the agency.
ORDER
For

the

foregoing

reasons,

the

Court

ALLOWS

Defendants’

motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 21).

SO ORDERED.
/s/ PATTI B. SARIS
Hon. Patti B. Saris
United States District Judge

12