Employment – Vaccination

Listen to this article

Where a defendant hospital was awarded summary judgment on a claim of religious discrimination asserted by a plaintiff employee who was denied a religious exemption from the hospital’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, the judgment must be vacated because the plaintiff’s stated reasons for refusing the vaccine could be considered religious by a trier of fact.

“The plaintiff employee, Rachelle Jeune, appeals from a grant of summary judgment dismissing her complaint against UMass Memorial Health Care (UMass Memorial) alleging religious discrimination in violation of G.L.c. 151B, §4(1), (1A). … In Massachusetts, an employer must accommodate an employee’s genuine religious beliefs if it can do so without creating an undue hardship. We conclude that the plaintiff’s stated beliefs that her body is a temple of God and that she prayed to God and received a message not to receive the COVID-19 vaccination were beliefs that a trier of fact could determine were religious in nature. We further conclude that, on this summary judgment record, UMass Memorial — which has a policy of providing a religious exemption to its vaccination requirement — failed to demonstrate an undue burden as a matter of law. Finally, concluding that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the plaintiff is an employee of UMass Memorial (which UMass Memorial denies), we reverse the grant of summary judgment to UMass Memorial. …

“UMass Memorial accepts that the sincerity of the plaintiff’s expressed religious beliefs cannot be contested on summary judgment, although it remains free to challenge their sincerity at trial. Rather, UMass Memorial contends that the plaintiff’s beliefs are secular, not religious.

“Here, the plaintiff expressed the belief that her ‘body is the temple of God’ and that the vaccines contain ‘proteins [that] are not natural to human genetic system.’ She stated that she consulted the Bible and prayed to God and that her refusal was a ‘distinctive message from my God.’ In her deposition, she testified that, ‘Before I put anything into my body, I have to connect it with my — with my god and then review the information to see if it’s something that really cooperate to my belief before I take it.’ She stated that she is ‘one with the creator’ and ‘putting anything into my body, example like COVID vaccine, can prevent me from connecting to god.’ Her process was to ‘pray for connection. I ask for guidance, … when I go to my altar, I present the ingredient, I present the paper, and see if I can connect with it, what is it it’s going to do alter to my body.’ She reported that she had followed that process each time before taking the hepatitis B vaccine.

“Case law from the Federal appellate courts establishes that the reasons given in this plaintiff’s request could be considered religious by a trier of fact. …

“… A plaintiff, like the plaintiff here, who believes that she was created in God’s image and that her body is a temple of God and thus needs God’s approval to expose her body to foreign substances, expresses a religious belief. Moreover, a plaintiff who prays to God and receives a ‘distinctive message from my God’ acts in accordance with religious beliefs when she follows those divine instructions. …

“Here, the summary judgment record reveals a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether accommodating the plaintiff’s religious beliefs would cause an undue hardship to UMass Memorial. …”

Jeune v. UMass Memorial Health Care System (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-067-25) (21 pages) (Ditkoff, J.) The case was heard by Daniel M. Wrenn, J., on a motion for summary judgment. Scott A. Lathrop for the plaintiff; Robert L. Kilroy (Massiel L. Sanchez also present) for the defendant (Docket No. AC 24-P-1047) (Sept. 29, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.