Plaintiff Lynn McAllister sued defendant Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act related to Tyson’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
McAllister worked for Tyson for over thirty years as a Senior Facility Engineer at its Emporia beef processing plant. In August 2021, Tyson implemented a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all employees. McAllister requested an accommodation based on his Christian religious beliefs, specifically his opposition to vaccines developed using aborted fetal cell lines. Tyson granted McAllister’s accommodation request by placing him on “Leave of Absence Plus” (LOA+), which provided one year of unpaid leave with continued health benefits starting November 1, 2021. In October 2022, Tyson invited LOA+ employees to return to work subject to position availability. However, in November 2022, Tyson terminated McAllister. McAllister filed discrimination charges with the EEOC and subsequently filed this lawsuit.
Legal Analysis
Motion to File Sur-Reply: The court denied McAllister’s motion to file a sur-reply because Tyson’s reply brief appropriately responded to arguments raised in McAllister’s response brief.
Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies: The court dismissed McAllister’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims (Count II) and disparate impact claim (Count VI) because his EEOC charge focused exclusively on religious discrimination and did not mention disability discrimination or disparate impact.
Bad Faith Interactive Process Claim: The court dismissed McAllister’s standalone claim for “bad faith deceptive interactive process” (Count I) because Title VII does not recognize such an independent cause of action, though such allegations may support his failure-to-accommodate claim.
Religious Discrimination Claims: The court allowed McAllister’s religious discrimination claims to proceed. For the disparate treatment claim, the court found McAllister adequately alleged his Christian faith, adverse employment actions (LOA+ placement and termination), and circumstances suggesting discrimination. For the failure-to-accommodate claim, the court found sufficient allegations of a bona fide religious belief conflicting with the vaccine requirement, notice to Tyson, and adverse action. For the retaliation claim, the court found McAllister adequately alleged protected activity (requesting accommodation), adverse action (termination), and causation.
The court denied Tyson’s motion to dismiss McAllister’s religious discrimination claims but granted the motion to dismiss his disability discrimination, disparate impact, and bad faith interactive process claims.
Schrag on Law 