EEOC sues Mayo Clinic over alleged religious discrimination in COVID-19 vaccine mandate

• The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Mayo Clinic for allegedly violating the civil rights of a Christian employee by coercing him to receive a COVID-19 vaccine despite his religious objections.
• Cody Schultz, a security guard and member of the Assemblies of God church, sought a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate due to his belief that the vaccine’s ingredients conflicted with his faith. He offered to wear a mask and undergo regular testing as alternatives.
• The Mayo Clinic denied Schultz’s request for a religious exemption, stating he did not meet the criteria. After his reconsideration request was also denied, he was issued a final warning and faced termination if he did not get vaccinated.
• The lawsuit claims the Mayo Clinic violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by not reasonably accommodating Schultz’s religious beliefs and cites Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 for potential damages. The case follows the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, which set a higher bar for employers to prove “undue hardship” in denying religious accommodations.
• The outcome of the lawsuit could significantly impact how employers handle religious exemptions to vaccine mandates. The EEOC emphasizes that employees have the right to request reasonable religious accommodations without fear of punishment, and the agency is committed to holding employers accountable for violations of federal civil rights laws.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the prestigious Mayo Clinic. Filed on July 30, the lawsuit accuses the Minnesota-based healthcare giant of violating the civil rights of a Christian employee by coercing him into receiving a Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine despite his religious objections.

The plaintiff in the case is Cody Schultz, a security guard at the Mayo Clinic and a member of the Assemblies of God church. According to the lawsuit, Schultz’s religious beliefs conflicted with the COVID-19 vaccine. He argued that receiving the vaccine would violate his religious convictions, and that it would be tantamount to suicide if he were to die from it, undermining his faith in God.

Schultz initially sought a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate, which the Mayo Clinic implemented on Oct. 13, 2021. The policy required all employees to be fully vaccinated by Dec. 3 that same year, unless they received a medical or religious exemption. Schultz submitted an accommodation request on Nov. 1, stating his religious beliefs and offering to wear a mask and undergo regular COVID-19 testing as alternatives.

Despite his efforts, the Mayo Clinic denied Schultz’s request for a religious exemption on Nov. 21, stating that he did not meet the criteria. The clinic rejected his subsequent reconsideration request on Dec. 1, 2021, and issued a final written warning on Dec. 3, informing him that he would be terminated if he did not receive the vaccine by January 2022.

Facing the threat of termination, Schultz reluctantly received the COVID-19 vaccine after exhausting all other options. The lawsuit alleges that the Mayo Clinic violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees’ religious practices unless it would cause an “undue hardship” on the business. The lawsuit also cites Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which allows for damages in cases of discrimination. (Related: 19 New York school teachers go to Supreme Court to sue for RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION after state denied vaccine exemptions.)

Legal precedent and implications

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a significant Supreme Court ruling in 2023, Groff v. DeJoy, which set a higher bar for employers to prove that accommodating an employee’s religious beliefs would cause an “undue hardship.” The court clarified that employers must demonstrate more than a minimal cost to deny such accommodations.

“Employees have a right to request reasonable religious accommodations without fear of punishment or termination, including for vaccination policies,” said EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas in a news release. “Effectively forcing employees to submit to vaccinations against sincerely held religious beliefs can violate federal civil rights laws. The EEOC will hold employers accountable for such violations of Title VII.”

The outcome of the EEOC’s lawsuit against the Mayo Clinic could have far-reaching implications for how employers handle religious exemptions to vaccine mandates. As the legal proceedings unfold, the case will be closely watched by legal experts, employers and employees alike, with the potential to shape future policies and practices.

In a time when the intersection of public health and personal beliefs is more contentious than ever, the lawsuit serves as a reminder of the delicate balance that must be struck to protect both the well-being of the workforce and the fundamental rights of individuals. The EEOC’s pursuit of this case reflects its commitment to upholding civil rights and ensuring that employers adhere to the law in their handling of religious accommodation requests.

Watch the video below where virologist Dr. Judy Mikovits talks about California revoking all religious exemptions on the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

This video is from The Real Dr Judy channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Federal jury awards $4 million to St. Louis school employees denied religious vaccine exemptions.

American Academy of Pediatrics threatens PARENTAL RIGHTS with federal mandates for all childhood vaccines.

Supreme Court’s silence deepens fight for health freedom in Maine vaccine case.

Sources include:

LifeSiteNews.com

S3.DocumentCloud.org

CBSNews.com

EEOC.gov

Brighteon.com