Michael Donio sued his employer, Arch Oncology, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Donio alleged that Arch Oncology discriminated against him based on his religion, denied his request for religious accommodation concerning a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, and retaliated against him for engaging in protected conduct.
Factual Overview
Michael Donio began working for Arch Oncology in 2016 as a senior scientist. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he worked from home in accordance with the company’s policy. On September 2, 2021, Arch Oncology announced a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for its employees, requiring full vaccination within six weeks. Donio requested a religious exemption on September 13, which was denied by Arch on September 27 without any discussion of alternative accommodations. Subsequently, Donio was terminated from his position on September 30, 2021. He filed a charge of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming discrimination for failure to accommodate his religious exemption request and for his dismissal based on his religion.
Legal Analysis
Failure to Exhaust: The court granted Arch Oncology’s motion to dismiss Donio’s claim of retaliation (Count I of his petition) due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies on this specific claim. The charge filed with the MCHR and EEOC did not mention retaliation or allege facts that would support a claim of retaliation for requesting a religious accommodation, leading to the dismissal of this claim.
Timeliness of MHRA Claims: Arch Oncology argued that Donio’s MHRA claims should be dismissed due to the statute of limitations, as his action was filed more than two years after the alleged discrimination occurred. Even so, the court found that Donio’s discharge from his position on September 30, 2021, fell within the two-year timeframe before he filed this action on September 29, 2023. Therefore, the motion to dismiss based on timeliness was denied.
Adverse Employment Action: Arch Oncology contended that Donio’s petition failed to allege an adverse employment action, a necessary element for his claims under Title VII and the MHRA. The court disagreed, finding that the combination of Donio’s petition and his charge of discrimination sufficiently alleged discriminatory discharge as an adverse employment action. The petition stated that Donio suffered an adverse employment action through the denial of his accommodation request, and the charge of discrimination detailed his dismissal following the denial, thus supporting his claims.
Consequently, while the court dismissed Donio’s retaliation claim, it allowed his remaining claims of religious discrimination and failure to accommodate under both Title VII and the MHRA to proceed.
Schrag on Law 