Plaintiff Thomas Wertz sued defendants Mercy Health and MHM Support Services in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri raising claims of religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Before the court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Wertz worked for Mercy as a Vendor Management Office manager. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Mercy instituted a vaccination policy requiring all employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine unless approved for a religious or medical exemption. Wertz submitted a religious exemption request based on his Catholic beliefs, which was denied. He did not get vaccinated and was terminated on October 28, 2021.
Wertz filed a complaint with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) on an unknown date. On July 17, 2023, the MCHR issued a Notice of Termination of Proceedings, dismissing Wertz’s charge due to lack of jurisdiction because Mercy was owned and operated by a religious organization. Wertz filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on May 12, 2022 (or possibly August 25, 2022, as his own evidence suggests). The EEOC issued Wertz a Notice of Right to Sue on January 31, 2023, which he claims to have received on February 6, 2023.
Legal Analysis
Timeliness of EEOC Claims: The court first addressed whether Wertz’s EEOC claim was timely filed. Title VII requires that a charge of discrimination be filed with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice, unless the claimant has first begun proceedings with a State agency with authority to grant relief, in which case the deadline is extended to 300 days.
The court found that because the MCHR lacked jurisdiction over Wertz’s claims due to Mercy’s status as a religious organization, the 180-day deadline applied rather than the 300-day deadline. As Wertz filed his charge at least 196 days after his termination, the court concluded that his claim was untimely and therefore barred.
Religious Exemption: The court then analyzed whether Mercy qualified for the religious organization exemption under Title VII. Applying the nine-factor test from LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Community Center Association, the court examined Mercy’s non-profit status, religious purpose, ownership and affiliation with the Catholic Church, religious governance, and incorporation of religious practices in its operations.
The court found that Mercy and its subsidiaries clearly qualified as religious organizations under the LeBoon factors. As such, they were exempt from Title VII’s prohibitions against religious discrimination and retaliation.
The court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that Wertz’s claims were both untimely and barred by Mercy’s status as an exempt religious organization under Title VII.
Schrag on Law 