Dozier et al v. St. Charles Health System, Inc.

Filing 28

ORDER: Magistrate Judge Kasubhai's Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 24 ) is ADOPTED in part. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiffs Christina Dozier, Jennifer Carey, and Jessie Clark, ECF No. 10 , is GRANTED. Plaintiff s Christina Dozier, Jennifer Carey, and Jessie Clark are granted 14 days to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted in this order. The Court adopts Part II of the Findings and Recommendation. Defendant's motion to dismiss the hostile work environment claim is DENIED with leave to refile if Plaintiffs bring a hostile work environment claim. Signed on 8/29/2024 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
CHRISTINA DOZIER, an individual,
JENNIFER CAREY, an individual,
JESSIE CLARK, an individual,
KARI DERIENZO, an individual,
KATHLEEN CLURE, an individual,

Case No. 1:23-cv-1080-MK

Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
ST. CHARLES HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
a corporation,
Defendant.
___________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No.
24), and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Defendant filed objections. ECF No. 26. I have reviewed the file of this case de novo. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d
1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). As discussed below, Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s Findings and
Recommendation (ECF No. 23) is ADOPTED in part.
At this stage, the sole issue in this religious vaccination case is whether Plaintiffs
Christina Dozier, Jennifer Carey, and Jessie Clark have cleared the minimal burden required to
1 –ORDER

plead a conflict between an employment requirement and their respective sincerely held religious
beliefs. Admittedly, judges in this district have different views on exactly how minimal this
requirement is. At this time, absent guidance from the Ninth Circuit, this Court concludes the
appropriate action is to remain, to the extent possible, internally consistent.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter that “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face when the factual
allegations allow the court to infer the defendant’s liability based on the alleged conduct.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). The factual allegations must present more than “the
mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 678.
When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all allegations of material
fact as true and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Burgert v.
Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir. 2000). But the court is “not
bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. If the complaint is dismissed, leave to amend should be granted unless “the pleading could
not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497
(9th Cir. 1995).
DISCUSSION
To assert a prima facie failure-to-accommodate claim under Title VII, Plaintiffs must
allege that (1) she “had a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicted with an
employment duty; (2) [she] informed [her] employer of the belief and conflict; and (3) the
employer discharged, threatened, or otherwise subjected [her] to an adverse employment action
2 –ORDER

because of [her] inability to fulfill the job requirement.” Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358
F.3d 599, 606 (9th Cir. 2004). “According to the EEOC, ‘a bona fide religious belief is one that
is sincerely held.’” Stephens, 2023 WL 7612395, at * 3 (quoting U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity
Comm’n, EEOC-CVG-2023-3, Section 12: Religious Discrimination, § 12-1(A)(2) (Jan. 15,
2021) (cleaned up)).
The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have each cautioned against second-guessing
the reasonableness of an individual’s asserted religious beliefs. See e.g., Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 725 (2014) (noting the Court’s “narrow function in this context is to
determine whether the line drawn reflects an honest conviction[.]”) (cleaned up); Bolden-Hardge
v. Off. of California State Controller, 63 F.4th 1215, 1223 (9th Cir. 2023) (“we do not interrogate
the reasonableness of [Plaintiff’s] beliefs and instead focus our inquiry on whether she has
alleged an actual conflict.”). However, a court need not take “plaintiffs’ conclusory assertions of
violations of their religious beliefs at face value.” Bolden-Hardge, 63 F.4th at 1223. Similarly, a
“threadbare reference” to a plaintiff’s religious beliefs is insufficient to satisfy the first element
of a prima facie case for Title VII discrimination. Gage v. Mayo Clinic, No. CV-22-02091-PHXSMM, 2023 WL 3230986, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 3, 2023) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
Title VII does not protect medical, economic, political, or social preferences. See Tiano v.
Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679, 682 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Detwiler, 2022 WL
19977290, at *4 (finding plaintiff's objection to regular COVID-19 antigen testing to be
secular—as opposed to a “sincere religious opposition”— because they believed the tests were
carcinogenic and would cause more harm than good) report and recommendation adopted, 2023
WL 3687406 (D. Or. May 26, 2023); Ruscitti v. Legacy Health, No. 3:23-cv-00787-JR, 2023
WL 8007620 (D. Or. Sept. 27, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 8006269
3 –ORDER

(D. Or. Nov. 16, 2023) (listing cases and noting “the use of religious vocabulary does not elevate
a personal medical judgment to a matter of protected religion”) (quoting Passarella v. Aspirius,
Inc., 22-cv-342-jdp, 2023 WL 2455681, at *5-6 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 10, 2023)).
With that context, the Court turns to the allegations at issue. Plaintiff Dozier alleges that
“She applied for a religious exception due to her strongly held Christian beliefs[.]” Compl. ¶ 6;
ECF No. 1. Plaintiff Carey alleges that she “applied for a religious exception to the COVID-19
vaccine, which was accepted.” Compl. ¶ 10. Plaintiff Clark alleges she “has deeply held
Christian beliefs and filed a request for a religious exception before she went on leave.” Compl. ¶
17. These are the definition of threadbare allegations. Elsewhere, Plaintiffs allege they “are
members of a protected class on the basis of their devout and sincerely held religious belief in
the tenants of Christianity and Judaism” and their “sincerely held religious beliefs conflicted
with the Defendant’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.” Compl. ¶¶ 33–34.
As this Court has previously concluded, however, such “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., No. 1:22-CV-01842-MC, 2023 WL
4865533, at *5 (D. Or. July 28, 2023). Plaintiffs’ allegations mirror an exemption this Court
previously concluded fails to state a claim. In Kamrath, the Plaintiff alleged he is a “devoutly
religious individual who adheres to principles of a Christian faith and is dedicated to following
the tenets of his faith to the best of his ability.” Kamrath v. Addictions Recovery Ctr., Inc., No.
1:23-CV-01516-MC, 2024 WL 942092, at *1 (D. Or. Mar. 5, 2024). In dismissing the claim, this
Court concluded:
In the present case, although Plaintiff identifies as “devoutly religious,” he fails to
explain how practicing his Christian beliefs actually conflicted with the
employment requirement to take the COVID-19 vaccine. See Pl.’s Compl. ¶¶ 6,
4 –ORDER

11. Indeed, the sum total of Plaintiff’s allegations supporting his sincerely held
religious belief consists of: “Plaintiff is also a devoutly religious individual who
adheres to principles of a Christian faith and is dedicated to following the tenets
of his faith to the best of his ability” and “Plaintiff had serious objections to
taking the vaccine because of his deeply held religious beliefs.” Id. Such
“[g]eneral references to Christianity do not meet even a ‘fairly minimal’ burden at
the pleading stage, as such allegations are conclusory and fail plausibly to suggest
that a plaintiff’s anti-vaccination beliefs are in fact religious.” Stephens v. LegacyGoHealth Urgent Care, No. 3:23-cv-206, 2023 WL 7612395, at *11 (D. Or. Oct.
23, 2023), findings and recommendations adopted as clarified by, 2023 WL
7623865 (Nov. 14, 2023); Trinh v. Shriners Hosps. for Child., No. 3:22-cv-01999,
2023 WL 7525228, at *I10–11 (D. Or. Oct. 23, 2023), (granting motion to
dismiss in Title VII claim where plaintiff was “devoutly” religious and objected to
taking the COVID-19 vaccine because it would “constitute violating her bodily
integrity and tainting the purity of her body”) (emphasis in original), findings and
recommendations adopted, 2023 WL 7521441 (Nov. 13, 2023).
Id. at *2.
This Court’s order dismissing Kamrath’s First Amended Complaint contains an analysis
demonstrating why, in this Court’s view, general, conclusory allegations like Plaintiffs’
allegations here fail to state a claim:
Plaintiff’s FAC contains further context regarding his requested exception.
Plaintiff alleges he “had serious objections to taking the vaccine because of his
deeply held Christian beliefs. Plaintiff’s role as a minister and his unshakeable
faith in God’s ability to keep him safe from the COVID-19 virus without taking
the vaccine was directly related to his opposition to taking the COVID-19
vaccine.” FAC ¶ 11. Additionally, for the first time, Plaintiff includes his request
for an exception. Plaintiff informed Defendant:
I, Torsten W. Kamrath have been an active member and ordained
minister (Reverend) since September 7th of 2010. I have been
ministering to people, performing ceremonies and funerals, giving
solace, suggestions and counsel as such Reverend. With the people
I minister to, it is my most important belief to do so with the
integrity of :Not [sic] to judge, not to discriminate, not to condemn,
not to coerce and not to force. My belief and ministering is nondenominational and practiced accordingly to the best of my daily
doings, my belief and knowledge. My Creator has provided so far
with what is necessary and I believe it has shown since March of
2020 [sic]. Through faith, prayer and practice I have been able to
perform my duties at work and remained healthy without a
5 –ORDER

vaccination. It is my belief that this vaccination is of no integral
good for my body, my spirituality or person in general.
Id. (emphasis omitted).
The Court certainly accepts as true that Plaintiff believed his Creator kept Plaintiff
healthy despite Plaintiff’s choice to not receive the vaccine. But this belief
presents no conflict with Defendant’s vaccine mandate. Stated differently,
Plaintiff’s specific factual allegation that “[t]hrough faith, prayer and practice I
have been able to perform my duties at work and remained healthy without a
vaccination” does not present an “actual conflict” with Defendant’s requirement
that, barring a valid exception, employees must be vaccinated. And Plaintiff’s
allegation that “It is my belief that this vaccination is of no integral good for my
body, my spirituality or person in general” is the type of “conclusory assertions of
violations of his religious beliefs” that the Court need not take “at face value.”
Bolden-Hardge, 63 F.4th at 1223; see Kather v. Asante Health Sys., No. 1:22-cv01842-MC, 2023 WL 4865533, *5 (D. Or. July 28, 2023) (statements related to
employer being in no position “to judge the Word of God” and mandate was
“blasphemy, satanic, sinful, untruth” failed to allege any religious-based conflict
because “vague expressions of sincerely held Christian beliefs alone cannot serve
as a blanket excuse for avoiding all unwanted employment obligations.”).
Concerns based on the vaccine’s potential to damage Plaintiff’s body (or even his
“spirituality or person in general”) differ from concerns this Court previously
found to be based on a valid, religious conflict with the mandate. See Bird v.
Randol, No. 6:23-CV-1678-MC, 2024 WL 964244 (D. Or. Mar. 6, 2024)
(plaintiff adequately pled a sincerely held religious beliefs when she informed her
employer, “‘the Holy Spirit has moved on my heart and conscience that I must not
accept the COVID vaccine,’ and that she would be ‘jeopardizing my relationship
with God’ if she were ‘to go against the moving of the Holy Spirit.’” (cleaned
up)); see also Kather, 2023 WL 4865533, *4–5 (finding Plaintiffs adequately
alleged a religious conflict with an employment duty by alleging “Satan is at work
with the whole forceful COVID-19 mandate” and explaining receiving the
vaccine conflicted with “sincerely held religious belief not to interfere with the
function of the human immune system which God created.”). Plaintiff’s statement
that “It is my belief that this vaccine is of no integral good for my body, my
spirituality or person in general” falls well short of affirmative statements that
some religious entity directed someone to not take the vaccine. The latter,
affirmative allegations meet the “minimal burden” because they allege an actual
conflict with a vaccine mandate. The former statements, relating instead to a
general belief that the vaccine is “of no integral good,” do not.
To summarize, the Court agrees with numerous judges in this district that
concerns about the vaccine’s side effects and safety are unprotected medical
beliefs, rather than protected religious beliefs. See Detwiler, 2023 WL 7221458 at
*6 (acknowledging Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious belief that “her body is a
6 –ORDER

temple of the Holy Spirit” but concluding her objection to carcinogenic substance
in vaccine “was not, in this case, premised on the Bible or any other religious
tenet or teaching, but rather on her research-based scientific/medical
judgments.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 7220734 (D. Or.
Nov. 2, 2023); see also Craven v. Shriners Hosps. for Child., No. 3:22-cv-01619IM, 2024 WL 21557 at *4 (D. Or. Jan. 2, 2024) (despite religious conviction that
Plaintiff’s “body is a temple of the Holy Spirit,” plaintiff’s objection that the
COVID-19 vaccine was unsafe and could “cause serious harm and even death to
the body” was “decidedly secular” and “scientific and medical, not religious.”);
Stephens, 2023 WL 7612395, at *6 (recognizing “fairly minimal” burden to allege
conflict with religious belief but holding allegations that as a “devoutly religious
member of the Christian faith who endeavors at all times to follow the teachings
of Christ, [plaintiff] did not believe it was consistent with her faith to take the
vaccine” did not meet even that minimal burden).
The Court agrees with Judge Mosman that it “boils down to a pleading
requirement issue. Courts will not second-guess the reasonableness of a plaintiff’s
assertion that a requirement conflicts with her religious beliefs, but plaintiffs still
must saw what the conflict is. This burden is minimal, but plaintiffs must still
allege a conflict.” Bulek v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., No. 3:23-cv-01585-MO, 2024
WL 1436134, at *3 (D. Or. April 3, 2024) (concluding allegations that exception
was needed “based on [Plaintiff’s] sincerely held religious beliefs as a devout
Christian” failed to allege any conflict with employer’s policy and plaintiff’s
religious beliefs). Because Plaintiff fails to plead a sincerely held religious belief
that conflicted with an employment duty, his religious discrimination claims fail.
Peterson, 358 F.3d at 606; see Gage, 2023 WL 3230986, at *3 (noting a
“threadbare reference” to religious beliefs fails to establish the first element of a
prima facie case for Title VII discrimination).
Kamrath, 2024 WL 2785385, at *3–4 (May 30, 2024).
This Court has strived to remain internally consistent. A few weeks ago, this Court issued
an opinion dismissing pleadings similar to Plaintiffs’ allegations here. See Bowerman, et al. v. St.
Charles Health Sys., Inc., No. 6:23-CV-01488, July 1, 2024 Opinion & Order (slip opinion). One
Plaintiff in Bowerman “asserted in her timely religious exemption that the vaccine goes against
her religious beliefs ‘[a]s a practicing Christian[.]” Op. & Order, 7 (citation omitted). The Court
concluded that Plaintiff “fails to explain how her Christian beliefs actually conflict with
Defendant’s employment requirement.” Id. This Court similarly rejected another Bowerman
7 –ORDER

Plaintiff’s allegation “that the vaccine ‘violates her ‘God-given right to bodily sovereignty.’” Id.
at 10. Another Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that she “has strong Christian religious beliefs
that prevented her from taking the COVID-19 vaccine” similarly fell short. Id. The Bowerman
Opinion was consistent with this Court’s previous holdings that general objections to the vaccine
“as religious Christians” “do not meet even a fairly minimal burden at the pleading stage, as such
allegations are conclusory” and do not demonstrate any religious conflict with an employer’s
vaccine mandate. Burns v. Asante Rogue Regional Medical Ctr., 1:23-cv-857-MC, 2024 WL
712610, at *4 (D. Or. Feb. 21, 2024 Opinion). Although the pleading requirement is minimal, a
plaintiff bringing a religious discrimination claim must still allege an actual conflict between
their sincerely held religious belief and an employment obligation. Conclusory allegations, such
as an allegation that the Plaintiffs’ “sincerely held religious beliefs conflicted with the
Defendant’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate” fail to meet that low bar.
Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 24) is ADOPTED
in part. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiffs Christina Dozier, Jennifer Carey, and
Jessie Clark, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Christina Dozier, Jennifer Carey, and Jessie
Clark are granted 14 days to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted in this
order. The Court adopts Part II of the Findings and Recommendation. Defendant’s motion to
dismiss the hostile work environment claim is DENIED with leave to refile if Plaintiffs bring a
hostile work environment claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 29th of August, 2024.
_______/s/ Michael J. McShane________
Michael McShane
United States District Judge
8 –ORDER