Background
Brooke Mason worked as a pharmacist at Cook County Health’s Stroger Hospital, where she shared a workspace with approximately 60 pharmacy employees, counseled patients, and delivered medication to a floor treating COVID-19 patients. In August 2021, Cook County required staff to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, relying on public-health guidance and its experience with infections, staffing shortages, and risks to medically vulnerable patients.
Mason sought a religious exemption based on her Christian beliefs. The County denied the request because her job required in-person work, gave her 90 days to seek a remote position, and terminated her when none was available. Mason sued under Title VII, alleging failure to accommodate and disparate treatment. The district court granted summary judgment to the County, concluding that accommodating her would impose an undue hardship and that another employee identified as “Sanitarian I” was not a valid comparator.
The Court’s Holding
A divided Seventh Circuit affirmed. Assuming without deciding that Mason established a prima facie failure-to-accommodate claim based on a sincerely held religious belief, the majority held that no reasonable jury could find that the County could accommodate her without undue hardship. The County’s evidence showed that vaccination provided additional protection beyond masking, distancing, and testing, and that allowing an unvaccinated pharmacist to work around employees and vulnerable patients risked transmission, staffing disruptions, and interference with hospital operations. Mason offered no evidence showing that her proposed precautions would adequately substitute for vaccination.
The court also rejected Mason’s reliance on Sanitarian I. The majority reasoned that the County initially did not know whether that employee had received a vaccine or placebo in a blinded study, pursued clarification after discovering the possible noncompliance, and required vaccination once the employee learned she had received the placebo. The employee also held a different job, worked at a different location under different supervisors, and was not shown to have comparable patient and staff contact. Judge Taibleson dissented, concluding that the County’s generalized affidavits did not establish the substantial increased costs required by Groff v. DeJoy and that both claims should proceed to trial.
Key Takeaways
- A healthcare employer may establish undue hardship at summary judgment with evidence that an unvaccinated, in-person employee would create substantial safety and operational burdens in a hospital setting.
- The undue-hardship analysis is context-specific and may account for an employee’s contact with coworkers and medically vulnerable patients, as well as the effect of outbreaks on staffing and operations.
- An employee in a different job, location, and supervisory structure who presents materially different circumstances may not support either an undue-hardship challenge or a disparate-treatment claim.
Why It Matters
This was the Seventh Circuit’s first decision addressing when summary judgment is appropriate on undue hardship in a Title VII challenge to a COVID-19 vaccine requirement. The majority accepted the County’s evidence as sufficient under Groff because of Mason’s hospital-based duties and the undisputed risks confronting the healthcare system.
The dissent highlights a likely fault line in future cases: whether generalized public-health evidence and employer affidavits adequately prove the burden of denying a specific accommodation, or whether employers must provide more individualized and quantified evidence.