4th Circuit backs worker who cited the Bible in abstaining from COVID vaccine policy

Federal courts have closely scrutinized the nature of plaintiffs’ religious beliefs in challenges to employers’ COVID-19 vaccination mandates. The district court granted summary judgment to Essity on all claims, but the 4th Circuit panel reversed 2-1 on the religious bias claim alone. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act requires that employers reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious, moral or ethical belief unless doing so would pose undue hardship, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In Wilkins-Bailey v. Essity Professional Hygiene N.A., LLC , the 4th Circuit determined that the plaintiff’s refusal to vaccinate — which stemmed in part from her belief that her body is her “temple” and that she could not put harmful things into it — was at least somewhat religious despite the fact that she stated her beliefs in “somewhat imprecise terms.” Such mixed secular and religious motives do not preclude Title VII’s protection, the court said. Essity argued that, because the plaintiff believed that she could interpret the personal requirements of her religion, her refusal to vaccinate was the product of a “personal decision” and constituted a preference or choice not protected by Title VII.

The court rejected this line of reasoning, noting that many religions permit and encourage adherents to discern or interpret official texts, while others have no centrally managed canons. “This interpretation of Title VII would leave millions of religious Americans unprotected in their workplaces,” the 4th Circuit said. “Title VII protects even those religions which do not require strict adherence to a written catechism.” However, the court stopped short of finding that Essity had not shown undue hardship, and it instructed the district court to determine this question in further proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified in its 2023 Groff v. De Joy decision that, in order for a proposed religious accommodation to pose an undue hardship, it must present a burden that is substantial in the overall context of the employer’s business. A lone dissenting judge wrote that he would have affirmed summary judgment for Essity on the plaintiff’s religious bias claim. The 4th Circuit’s analysis is noteworthy in light of other recent COVID-19 vaccination policy cases alleging religious discrimination.

Specifically, the 9th Circuit has issued multiple decisions weighing the religious nature of plaintiff’s claims. In September 2025, a panel of the 9th Circuit held that an Oregon employee’s objection to such a policy was “personal and secular” rather than a bona fide religious belief, despite the plaintiff’s statement that a proposed antigen testing accommodation would have violated her belief that it was her Christian duty to “protect [her] body as the temple of the Holy Spirit.” The plaintiff’s petition for hearing en banc was denied, but the plaintiff has signaled that she will appeal the case to the Supreme Court . Conversely, the 9th Circuit allowed a former consultant for The Permanente Medical Group to proceed with a religious bias lawsuit over a similar policy despite her admission that she had received other vaccines in the past. This fact alone could not suffice as a reason to doubt the sincere religious nature of the employee’s request, the 9th Circuit held. The officer also said she was forbidden to speak publicly about equity. Virginia is the latest to enact a statewide pay history law, which will take effect July 1, 2026. Maine’s law affecting employers with 10 or more employees is set to take effect this week. An update to our conference list includes the latest dates and locations organizers have shared.

⚡ Effects Interpreter

🌍 Effects for your country