Plaintiff Adam J. Gunkel sued OU Medicine Inc., doing business as OU Health. The claims revolve around the defendant’s enforcement of a federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate and the plaintiff’s decision to refuse vaccination on religious grounds.
Factual Overview
The dispute originated when OU Health began mandating its employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in July 2021, with termination being a potential consequence for non-compliance. However, employees could retain their jobs if their vaccine refusal was based on allergic, medical, philosophical, or religious reasons. Gunkel, who was an employee at the time, submitted an exemption form citing “philosophical or religious beliefs” and continued working unvaccinated. The situation escalated in November 2021 following a federal mandate issued by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS), necessitating all Medicare and Medicaid certified providers, including OU Health, to enforce vaccination among employees. OU Health responded by introducing a more detailed exemption request process. Gunkel submitted a form under this new process but refrained from discussing his beliefs in detail. Eventually, after a deadline in January 2022 for compliance or exemption was set by OU Health, Gunkel was suspended and then terminated. He brought this action alleging religious discrimination among other torts.
Legal Analysis
Title VII Religious Discrimination: Gunkel’s primary claim was that OU Health violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against him based on his religious beliefs. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on religion and requires employers to accommodate an employee’s religious practices unless it causes undue hardship on the business. The court analyzed this claim using the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to assess whether Gunkel’s circumstantial evidence could establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Despite acknowledging Gunkel as a sincere holder of religious beliefs who suffered an adverse employment action, the court focused on whether he had provided enough information to support an inference that his termination was motivated by a failure to accommodate his religious conflict.
The court noted that Gunkel’s refusal to detail his religious beliefs hindered OU Health’s ability to consider, and therefore potentially accommodate, his needs. This led to the court finding no precedent to support Gunkel’s argument that any alteration to an accommodation agreement, prompted by changing legal circumstances like the CMS mandate, automatically constituted discrimination. Moreover, the court highlighted that Gunkel’s non-disclosure of his religious beliefs made it impossible to infer discrimination on OU Health’s part. Consequently, the court ruled that Gunkel had not plausibly alleged his Title VII religious discrimination claim, leading to its dismissal with prejudice.
Remaining State Law Claims: With the federal claim dismissed, the court declined to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, opting to remand them to the District Court of Oklahoma County for further consideration.
Schrag on Law 