Thomas Clobes sued 3M Company in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, asserting religious discrimination and hostile work environment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The district court granted 3M’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and denied Clobes leave to amend his complaint, and Clobes appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Factual Overview
Clobes, a practicing Christian employed at a 3M manufacturing plant, objected to 3M’s COVID-19 vaccination policy based on his religious beliefs and safety concerns. He requested a religious accommodation, but 3M did not immediately grant the request and instead asked follow-up questions. 3M lifted the vaccine requirement on December 10, 2021, after the Federal Contractor Mandate was enjoined. Clobes alleged that he felt harassed and discriminated against by 3M’s policy and the fear of termination.
Legal Analysis
Hostile Work Environment Claims: The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Clobes’s hostile work environment claims. The court found that Clobes’s complaint failed to plausibly support (1) a causal nexus between 3M’s allegedly harassing conduct and Clobes’s status as a Christian, and (2) that the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive enough to affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment.
Denial of Leave to Amend: The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Clobes leave to amend his complaint based on his failure to comply with the District of Minnesota’s Local Rule 15.1(b), which requires a copy of the proposed amended pleading to accompany a motion to amend.
Concurring Opinion: Judge Stras, in a concurring opinion, expressed skepticism about the court’s conclusion regarding the lack of a causal nexus between the alleged harassment and Clobes’s religion. However, he agreed with the majority that the alleged harassment was neither severe nor pervasive enough to be actionable.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Clobes’s hostile work environment claims and its denial of leave to amend the complaint.
Schrag on Law 