Frank Savel and Danielle Crockett v. the Metrohealth System

Cleveland, Ohio employment law lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on civil rights violation theories.



MetroHealth is a county-owned hospital in Cleveland, Ohio. In August 2021, it required

its entire workforce to get vaccinated against COVID-19. At the same time, MetroHealth allowed

employees to request exemptions for medical or religious reasons. MetroHealth received over 400

such exemption requests. But an intervening COVID-19 surge and shifting public health guidance

delayed its decisions. In the meantime, MetroHealth treated those awaiting decisions as compliantNo. 24-4025, Savel v. MetroHealth System small number of both religious and medical requests. It did so after individually assessing the

health and safety risks posed by each request, including the risks of exempting applicants in

patient-facing positions.



Frank Savel, an intensive-care nurse in MetroHealth's main campus, requested a religious

exemption from the vaccine requirement. In February 2022, MetroHealth denied his request.

MetroHealth found that Savel had a sincere religious belief that conflicted with the vaccine

mandate, but that exempting him would cause the hospital an undue hardship. MetroHealth told

Savel that alternative protocols like masking were "far less effective” and placed "patients,

coworkers, and others at significant risk.” Denial Email, R. 12-2, PageID 312. Given that risk,

MetroHealth determined that remote work was the only accommodation it could offer. But Savel

had a frontline job serving COVID-19 patients and could not work remotely. So MetroHealth gave

him 45 days to get vaccinated or apply to switch to a remote position.



A month later, and shortly before the vaccination deadline, MetroHealth announced it

would grant previously denied religious exemptions. At the time, positivity rates were at a record

low, winter was over, and forecasts looked favorable. MetroHealth thus determined that the "costs

and burdens” of granting those exemptions had "changed in a material way.” Announcement, R.

12-2, PageID 434–35. But the change came late for Savel, who had already left MetroHealth for a

comparable job elsewhere.



In late 2022, Savel and 45 other employees sued MetroHealth for religious discrimination

under Title VII and its Ohio counterpart. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2(a), 2000e(j); Ohio Rev. Code

§ 4112. The district court dismissed the entire case for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.

We affirmed that ruling except as to Savel's and Danielle Crockett's claims. Savel v. MetroHealth

Sys.her claims without prejudice, but the district court dismissed with prejudice instead. Only Savel's

claims remained.



As for those claims, the district court granted MetroHealth summary judgment. It held that

Savel had failed to genuinely dispute MetroHealth's assertion of undue hardship, so his

accommodation claim failed. It also found no evidence that MetroHealth denied Savel an

exemption because of his religion, so it granted summary judgment on his disparate treatment

claim as well. This appeal followed.

Affirmed