Medical Justice
Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic, Ambulance
What the court held
The Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal of Title VII and Minnesota Human Rights Act claims brought by five Mayo Clinic employees who were denied religious exemptions from a COVID-19 vaccination and testing policy. The court held that at the pleading stage the question is whether the stated belief is sincerely religious, writing that beliefs 'do not have to be uniform across all members of a religion or acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others.'
What it means
An employee's religious accommodation claim cannot be dismissed at the courthouse door because an employer, or a judge, finds the belief unorthodox or inconsistent. Sincerity, not orthodoxy, is the pleading-stage question.
The opinion also recognized failure-to-accommodate claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, a holding that later decisions in this line have followed.
This was a procedural ruling on the pleadings: the Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal and returned the case to the district court. It is not a final judgment, a damages award, or a settlement.