Employment- Class certified in suit over religious exemption from COVID-19 vaccinations

Although the court certified a class of employees who were denied or delayed requests for religious exemptions from mandated COVID-19 vaccination by the University of Virginia Health System because they were not members of established religions, it denied certification of two other putative classes.

Background

Plaintiffs move for class certification in this Title VII action which claims that the University of Virginia Health System discriminated against them by denying their requests for religious exemptions from the mandated COVID-19 vaccination. They seek to certify three classes challenging the procedures UVA Health used to evaluate religious exemption requests: (1) the “Disfavored Religions Class,” (2) the “Abortion Objectors Class” and (3) the “Failure-to-Accommodate Class.”

Exhaustion

Defendants first argue that plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as to any pattern-or-practice claim because none of the named plaintiffs’ EEOC charges identified a broader discriminatory policy. Instead, Plaintiffs’ EEOC charges merely described “their individual circumstances and requests for accommodation.”

In the context of class actions or “pattern or practice” claims, courts are divided as to whether individual claims of discrimination in an EEOC charge are sufficient to support a future class action. The Fourth Circuit has not addressed the issue directly except to note that an EEOC charge should “provide sufficient notice of the collective nature of [a plaintiff’s] claims.”

What matters is whether the employer was put on notice that the alleged discriminatory practice could affect a class of individuals, and whether a class wide investigation could reasonably be expected to grow out of the charges. Applying these principles here, I find that plaintiffs’ EEOC charges provided sufficient notice to UVA Health of potential class-based discrimination claims.

Defendants also argue that plaintiffs failed to exhaust any claim that UVA Health maintained a policy of rejecting abortion-based religious objections. The record does not support that argument.

Disfavored Religions Class

The Disfavored Religions Class is represented by all named plaintiffs. It consists of UVA Health employees or job applicants who (1) requested a religious accommodation from COVID vaccination, (2) were not members of UVA’s “established religions” and (3) suffered adverse employment action from UVA as a result of being unvaccinated.

The members of this class are readily ascertainable. UVA Health can identify those employees who applied for religious accommodations from the vaccination requirement and had their exemption requests denied, as well as those employees who eventually received vaccination or refused the vaccine and were terminated. And the numerosity requirement is met because plaintiff estimate that there are at least 210 members of this class.

Next, plaintiffs challenge a uniform policy that presumptively approved religious exemptions for adherents of six favored religions while subjecting other employees to heightened scrutiny, thus satisfying the commonality prong. Statistical evidence further supports plaintiffs’ allegations of a pattern or practice of discrimination.

Finally, while class members who resigned must prove constructive discharge, differences in the type of adverse employment action do not necessarily defeat typicality so long as all claims arise from a common discriminatory policy. However, because applicants must prove that they were deterred from accepting job offers due to UVA Health’s policy, requiring a different causation inquiry, applicants are excluded from the class definitions at this time.

Defendants do not challenge the adequacy of the named plaintiffs or class counsel, and there is no evidence suggesting either are inadequate. Next, because plaintiffs have proffered evidence of a pattern or practice of discrimination that could establish liability and entitle all class members to a presumption of individualized harm, I find that the predominance standard is satisfied. Finally, for many of the same reasons, the superiority prong is satisfied.

Abortion Objectors Class

The Abortion Objectors Class consists of UVA Health employees or job applicants who (1) submitted requests for accommodations from COVID vaccination based on the vaccines’ association with abortion or fetal cell lines and (2) suffered adverse employment action because they did not receive the vaccination. Because plaintiffs have not presented meaningful evidence of a uniform policy or practice governing UVA Health’s treatment of abortion-based objections, and because adjudicating these claims would require individualized inquiries into each employee’s beliefs and the reasons for denial, I find class-wide resolution to be unworkable.

Failure-to-Accommodate Class

The “Failure-to-Accommodate” class consists of all UVA Health employees or job applicants who (1) requested accommodations from COVID vaccination on religious grounds and (2) suffered adverse employment action because of being unvaccinated. Because resolution of the claims in this class would require a plaintiff-by-plaintiff inquiry into sincerity, reasonableness and hardship, the Failure-to-Accommodate Class fails to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement.

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification granted in part, denied in part.

Phillips v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, Case No. 3:22-cv-00075, April 23, 2026. WDVA at Charlottesville (Ballou). VLW 026-3-185. 27 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-185
Virginia Lawyers Weekly