Slater v. Behavioral Health Resources et al

Filing 30

ORDER granting 26 MOTION for Reconsideration re 24 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Behavioral Health Resources. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

ANGIE K. SLATER,

CASE NO. 23-5270 RJB
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH RESOURCES,
a non-profit corporation, and JOHN AND
JANE DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

16
17

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Behavioral Health Resources’

18

(“Behavioral Health”) Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. 26. The Court has considered the

19

pleadings filed regarding the motion and the remaining record.

20

In this case, the Plaintiff, Angie Slater, alleges that Behavioral Health violated her right

21

against religious discrimination contrary to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (“Title VII”) and the

22

Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.180, et. seq. (“WLAD”) when it

23

terminated her employment after she failed to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. Dkt. 1.

24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

Behavioral Health moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims. Dkt. 14. On

2

August 12, 2024, the Court denied the motion. Dkt. 24. Behavioral Health filed the pending

3

motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 26. Ms. Slater was given leave to, and did, respond (Dkt. 28),

4

and Behavioral Health filed a reply (Dkt. 29). For the reasons provided below, Behavioral

5

Health’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 26) should be granted, the August 12, 2024 order (Dkt.

6

24) vacated, Behavioral Health’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14) granted, and

7

Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed.

8

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

9

W.D. Wash. Local Civil R. 7(h)(1) provides that “[m]otions for reconsideration are

10

disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest

11

error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been

12

brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”

13

In its motion for reconsideration, Behavioral Health points to two sources of errors it

14

contends were in the order denying its motion for summary judgment: (1) that the Court

15

improperly considered inadmissible evidence and (2) did not apply the correct standard to its

16

undue hardship defense. Dkt. 26.

17

Behavioral Health’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 26) should be granted. The Court,

18

relying on Ms. Slater’s briefing, considered evidence that was not in the record. The Court

19

should reconsider its August 12, 2024 decision denying Behavioral Health’s motion for summary

20

judgment (Dkt. 24) relying on admissible evidence and applying the correct standard to

21

Behavioral Health’s undue hardship defense. For the reasons provided below, the August 12,

22

2024 order (Dkt. 24) should be vacated. This order will replace the August 12, 2024 order and

23

will consider Behavioral Health’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14).

24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

1

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

2
3

I.

FACTS

Beginning in February of 2020, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee declared a state of

4

emergency and issued several public health and safety proclamations related to the COVID-19

5

pandemic. Flower World, Inc. v. Sacks, 43 F.4th 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 2022). Even after

6

vaccines became available, the pandemic continued, with the virus mutating into various strains.

7

Does 1-6 v. Mills, 16 F.4th 20, 26 (1st Cir. 2021)(cert. denied sub nom. Does 1-3 v. Mills, 142 S.

8

Ct. 1112 (2022)). In the United States, the summer of 2021 saw the emergence of a highly

9

contagious COVID variant referred to as the “Delta” variant. Id.

10

Defendant Behavioral Health is a mental health and addiction recovery services provider

11

that remained open during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dkt. 18 at 1 (Declaration of Behavioral

12

Health CEO Laurie Tebo). Its patients included individuals who were considered to be at high

13

risk for severe COVID. Id. Once vaccines for COVID-19 became available, it encouraged

14

employees to receive a vaccination. See e.g. Dkt. 18-7 at 2 (July 2, 2021 email from Tebo to

15

Behavioral Health employees).

16

Ms. Slater was an office specialist for Behavioral Health whose duties included providing

17

in-person customer service support in the reception area, greeting patients, helping them with

18

their paperwork, collecting payments from patients, preparing charts, maintaining supplies in the

19

reception area, distributing mail, and participating in meetings. Dkt. 18-3 at 2-3 (description of

20

office specialist position signed by Ms. Slater on November 21, 2017). Her office space was

21

behind a reception desk that was connected to both the intake lobby and children’s lobby. Dkt.

22

15-1 at 7-8 (Ms. Slater’s deposition).

23
24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3

1

On August 5, 2021, Laurie Tebo of Behavioral Health reached out by email to Ms. Slater

2

and others because they had not submitted proof of vaccination. Dkt. 18-13. Ms. Slater

3

responded by email on August 9, 2021 with various reasons why she objected to receiving the

4

vaccine. Dkt. 18-14.

5

On August 20, 2021, Gov. Inslee issued Proclamation 21-14.1, “Covid-19 Vaccination

6

Requirement,” (“Proclamation”) which required state workers, workers in an education setting,

7

and healthcare providers to be fully vaccinated by October 18, 2021, unless they qualified for

8

medical or religious exemptions. Dkt. 15-2. It is undisputed that Ms. Slater was considered a

9

“healthcare provider” under the Proclamation.

10

On August 31, 2021, Ms. Slater submitted a religious exemption request. Dkt. 18-15.

11

On September 21, 2021, Behavioral Health approved Ms. Slater’s religious exemption request in

12

a letter and informed her that it would review whether a reasonable accommodation was

13

possible. Dkt. 17-1 at 2. She was advised that if she had questions, she could contact human

14

resources. Id.

15

Relying on guidance from public health authorities, Behavioral Health considered

16

whether Ms. Slater could safely perform her job duties with the accommodations of wearing a

17

mask, socially distancing, and testing for COVID-19 without putting the health and safety of

18

other co-workers and patients at risk. Dkts. 17 at 1 (Behavior Health Chief Operating Officer Ian

19

Harrel’s Declaration); 19-1 at 21-22 (Harrel Deposition). It concluded that it could not allow an

20

unvaccinated employee around others without increasing the risk of transmitting COVID-19 in

21

the workplace, even if the employee was wearing a mask, social distancing, and testing. Dkt. 17

22

at 1-2. Behavioral Health considered whether there were open positions for which Ms. Slater

23
24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4

1

was qualified and found there were none. Id. at 2. It also concluded that she could not perform

2

the basic functions of her job remotely. Id.

3

In a September 23, 2021 letter, Behavioral Health informed Ms. Slater that it was unable

4

to provide her with reasonable accommodation and so her employment would be terminated

5

October 18, 2021. Dkt. 17-4. In response to Ms. Slater’s union’s grievance of her separation,

6

Behavior Health explained that considering the “contagious nature of new variants, masking and

7

social distancing do not provide enough protection in a health care setting . . . [Behavioral

8

Health] cannot take the risk for . . . staff members, our clients and other staff members to be

9

unvaccinated in open client and staff areas.” Dkt. 17-2 at 2. It further noted that it considered all

10

possible accommodations, including masking, social distancing, and testing. Id. Behavioral

11

Health noted that testing (which would be at its expense and include the cost of the tests, time to

12

take the test, time to wait for the results “in combination with other factors of time off”) was

13

more than a de minimis cost. Id.

14

II.

DISCUSSION

15

A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

16

Summary judgment is proper only if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials

17

on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

18

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party is

19

entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient

20

showing on an essential element of a claim in the case on which the nonmoving party has the

21

burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1985). There is no genuine issue

22

of fact for trial where the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find

23

for the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586

24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5

1

(1986)(nonmoving party must present specific, significant probative evidence, not simply “some

2

metaphysical doubt”). Conversely, a genuine dispute over a material fact exists if there is

3

sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute, requiring a judge or jury to resolve

4

the differing versions of the truth. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 253 (1986);

5

T.W. Elec. Serv. Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).

6

The determination of the existence of a material fact is often a close question. The court

7

must consider the substantive evidentiary burden that the nonmoving party must meet at trial,

8

which is a preponderance of the evidence in most civil cases. Anderson at 254; T.W. Elect. at

9

630. The court must resolve any factual issues of controversy in favor of the nonmoving party

10

only when the facts specifically attested by that party contradict facts specifically attested by the

11

moving party. The nonmoving party may not merely state that it will discredit the moving

12

party’s evidence at trial, in the hopes that evidence can be developed at trial to support the

13

claim. T.W. Elect. at 630 (relying on Anderson at 255). Conclusory, non-specific statements in

14

affidavits are not sufficient, and “missing facts” will not be “presumed.” Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife

15

Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888–89 (1990).

16

B. TITLE VII, WLAD, AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH’S SHOWING OF UNDUE
HARDSHIP

17
The same burden-shifting framework is used to analyze failure to accommodate religious
18
belief claims under both Title VII and the WLAD. See Bolden-Hardge v. Office of California
19
State Controller, 63 F.4th 1215, 1222 (9th Cir. 2023); Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180
20
Wash.2d 481, 489 (2014). Ms. Slater’s Title VII and WLAD claims will be considered together
21
using this two-step process.
22
Step 1. First, an employee like Ms. Slater must set forth a prima facie case of failure to
23
accommodate religion. Bolden-Hardge at 1222. To demonstrate a prima facie case, an
24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6

1

employee must show, among other things, that they hold a “bona fide religious belief” which

2

conflicts with an employment requirement. Id. Behavior Health argues that Ms. Slater has failed

3

to meet this portion of her prima facie case. Dkt. 14.

4

The evidence is sharply disputed about the question of whether Ms. Slater’s objection to

5

vaccination was based on a “bona fide religious belief.” Her assertions are supported by her own

6

testimony in her deposition (Dkt. 19-1 at 31 and 37). Ms. Slater has pointed to sufficient facts at

7

issue regarding her bona fide religious beliefs being a basis to avoid vaccination.

8

Step 2. Second, if the employee is successful, the burden shifts to the employer to

9

demonstrate “either that it initiated good faith efforts to accommodate reasonably the employee’s

10

religious practices or that it could not reasonably accommodate the employee without undue

11

hardship.” Id. at 1224. Behavioral Health asserts that it could not reasonably accommodate Ms.

12

Slater without undue hardship. Dkts. 14, 20, 26 and 29. As an affirmative defense, Behavioral

13

Health bears the burden of proof at the second step. See Bolden-Hardge at 1222.

14

To establish that reasonable accommodations would impose undue hardship, “an

15

employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial

16

increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S.

17

447, 470 (2023). After Groff, district courts have continued to consider both economic and non-

18

economic costs (like cost to an employer’s mission and potential safety risks) when analyzing

19

employers’ claims of undue hardship. See e.g., Lavelle-Hayden v. Legacy Health, 3:22-CV-

20

01752-IM, 2024 WL 3822712, at *10 (D. Or. Aug. 14, 2024)(COVID-19 safety risk

21

unvaccinated worker was to other workers part of cost in undue hardship analysis); Bordeaux v.

22

Lions Gate Entm't, Inc., 703 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1135-36 (C.D. Cal. 2023)(finding undue hardship

23
24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 7

1

where accommodating COVID-19 vaccine exemption would have created safety risk to other

2

workers and replacing coworkers who became sick would have been expensive).

3

Considering the admissible evidence, Behavioral Health has demonstrated that it could

4

not reasonably accommodate Ms. Slater without undue hardship. The Plaintiff has failed to point

5

admissible evidence to the contrary.

6

Behavioral Health states that, as a provider of healthcare services, it closely monitored

7

the pandemic so that it “could take all necessary steps to protect the health and safety of [its]

8

employees and clients.” Dkt. 18 at 1. In assessing the risks of continuing to employ

9

unvaccinated workers in office positions like Ms. Slater’s, Behavioral Health states that it relied

10

on guidance from public health organizations. Dkts. 17 at 1; 18 at 1-2; 19-1 at 21-22. It states

11

that it considered accommodations for Ms. Slater such as masking, social distancing, and testing

12

for COVID. Dkts. 17 at 1; 19-1 at 21-22. It also considered whether it could accommodate her

13

by allowing her to work from home or whether there were other open positions for which she

14

was qualified. Dkt. 17 at 2.

15

In support of its decision to decline to accommodate Ms. Slater, Behavioral Health also

16

points to the opinion of John B. Lynch, MD, MPH, a board certified physician in infectious

17

disease, Professor of Medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine, an

18

Associate Medical Director at Seattle’s Harborview Medical Center (in charge of the Center’s

19

Infection Prevention & Control, Antimicrobial Stewardship, Employee Health, and Sepsis

20

program), who discusses the risks and viability of various accommodations. Dkt. 16. Dr. Lynch

21

did not have personal contact with Ms. Slater but, in forming his opinion, reviewed several

22

documents including Ms. Slater’s deposition, the Complaint, her job description, images taken

23

and produced by Ms. Slater of her office space, and various emails, letters, and text messages.

24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 8

1

Id. While his opinion was formed around two and a half years after Ms. Slater was fired, he

2

clarifies that his opinion is based on what was occurring in the late summer/fall of 2021. Id.

3

Dr. Lynch notes that in August of 2021 (around the time of the Proclamation and these

4

events) COVID-19 cases were spiking due to the Delta variant despite other strategies that were

5

in place. Id. at 13. Dr. Lynch further noted that data at the time indicated that the Delta variant

6

was more infectious and that unvaccinated individuals were likely infectious for longer than

7

vaccinated individuals. Id. Unvaccinated people were ten times more likely to be hospitalized

8

and eleven times more likely to die. Id. at 13-14.

9

Dr. Lynch explains that the understanding of COVID-19 transmission was changing from

10

droplet-mediated form to an aerosol-form of transmission in 2021. Id. According to Dr. Lynch,

11

“[a]erosol transmission implied that infections could occur over greater distances than previously

12

thought and in spaces that were previously inhabited by individuals with COVID-19.” Id. at 15.

13

Dr. Lynch states that based on the data at the time related to COVID-19’s aerosol transmission,

14

the 6-foot social distancing rule was not applicable. Id. at 21. Further, Dr. Lynch opines that

15

Ms. Slater’s acknowledgment in her deposition that she did not always wear her mask and had to

16

be told to do so (Dkt. 15-1 at 33-34), increased the potential for her generating an aerosol that

17

could transmit COVID-19, if she was infected, even if she put her mask in place when others

18

were present. Id. Dr. Lynch opines that testing does not eliminate the risk of spreading COVID.

19

Id. at 10. He notes that tests are not 100% accurate, there are issues with timing (e.g. taking a

20

test, contracting COVID while waiting for the test, and spreading it at work before the next test),

21

and in the fall of 2021, there were shortages of tests. Id. at 11. He opined that, in the fall of

22

2021, “an unvaccinated person posed materially higher risks of transmitting COVID-19,

23
24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 9

1

contracting COVID-19, and developing severe disease compared with a vaccinated person.” Id.

2

at 22. He contends that the “risks were greater both locally and nationally.” Id.

3

After considering Ms. Slater’s job duties, Dr. Lynch opines that had Behavioral Health

4

“allowed her to continue working as an unvaccinated office specialist, it would have significantly

5

increased the risk that she would infect members of the public, [Behavioral Health’s] customers,

6

and her co-workers with the virus or contract COVID-19 herself.” Id. at 22-23. He concludes

7

that “there was no reasonable accommodation from the COVID-19 mandate that would

8

sufficiently mitigate or eliminate the risk associated with an unvaccinated employee performing

9

the essential functions of Ms. Slater’s position.” Id. at 22.

10

Behavioral Health has shown that accommodating Ms. Slater as an office specialist

11

would have created significant costs to it in the form of unnecessary substantial health and safety

12

risks to its patients and Ms. Slater’s coworkers. These costs would have resulted in undue

13

hardship to Behavioral Health in the fall of 2021. In response to the motion for summary

14

judgment, Ms. Slater fails to point to issues of fact regarding whether reasonably accommodating

15

her would cause undue hardship for Behavioral Health. In her deposition she testified that

16

wearing a mask at work did not affect her ability to serve Behavioral Health’s patients or to work

17

with co-workers. Dkt. 19-1 at 8. Ms. Slater’s testimony does not negate Behavioral Health’s

18

showing regarding the heightened risk she posed to patients or co-workers or about Behavioral

19

Health’s undue hardship. Unlike Dr. Lynch, there is no showing that she was qualified to render

20

an opinion about the health and safety risks she posed to Behavioral Health’s patients and her

21

coworkers due to her unvaccinated status in the fall of 2021. She fails to point to issues of fact

22

regarding the cost to Behavioral Health.

23
24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 10

1

In addition to considering whether she could be accommodated by allowing her to wear a

2

mask, social distance, and test, at the time it denied her request, Behavioral Health also

3

considered whether it could accommodate Ms. Slater by having her work remotely or whether

4

she qualified for a different open position that could be performed remotely. Dkt. 17 at 2. It

5

concluded that she could not perform the basic functions of her job remotely and that there were

6

no open remotely-performed jobs for which she was qualified. Id.

7

Behavioral Health has shown that accommodating Ms. Slater would result is significant

8

economic and non-economic costs. It has demonstrated that it could not reasonably

9

accommodate Ms. Slater without undue hardship in the fall of 2021.

10

C. CONCLUSION

11

Considering the information available to it at the time and Ms. Slater’s job duties,

12

Behavioral Health has demonstrated that reasonably accommodating Ms. Slater would have

13

resulted in undue hardship. The accommodations’ economic and non-economic costs (including

14

the significant increased health and safety risk she posed as an unvaccinated worker to

15

Behavioral Health’s patients and to her coworkers) would have resulted in an undue hardship to

16

Behavioral Health. Lavelle-Hayden at 10; Bordeaux at 1135-36. Ms. Slater failed to point to

17

issues of material fact on this issue. Behavioral Health has shown that it is entitled to a judgment

18

as a matter of law – the undue hardship defense is a complete defense to WLAD and Title VII

19

failure-to-accommodate claims. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j); Kumar at 501-02; Williams v. Legacy

20

Health, 3:22-CV-6004-TMC, 2024 WL 3993162 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2024). Accordingly,

21

Behavioral Health’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14) should be granted and Ms. Slater’s

22

claims dismissed.

23
24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 11

1
2

ORDER
It is ORDERED that:

3



Behavioral Health’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 26) IS GRANTED;

4



The Court’s August 12, 2024 Order (Dkt. 24) IS VACATED;

5



Behavioral Health’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 14) IS GRANTED;

6
7
8
9
10

and


Plaintiff Angie Slater’s claims ARE DISMISSED.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and
to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
Dated this 25th day of September, 2024.

11
12
13

ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 12