George Rodrique, II v. Hearst Communications, Inc., et al.

Boston, Massachusetts civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff religious discrimination theory.



George Rodrique, II sued his

employer, Hearst Stations, Inc. ("Hearst"), after it denied his

request for a religious exemption from the company's COVID-19

vaccination requirement and then terminated him for refusing to

receive the vaccine. Rodrique claims that Hearst's failure to

grant his exemption request violated Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against

their employees based on religion.



The district court granted Hearst's motion for summary

judgment, concluding that Hearst had not discriminated against

Rodrique because his objections to the vaccine were not religious.

In its ruling, the court did not reach the second part of the

analysis of a religious accommodation claim under Title VII --

that is, whether granting Rodrique's request would have imposed an

undue hardship on Hearst.



* * *



Title VII declares it an "unlawful employment practice

for an employer . . . to discharge any individual, or otherwise to

discriminate against any individual with respect to his

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,

because of such individual's . . . religion." 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-2(a). Under the statute, religion "includes all aspects

of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an

employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate

to an employee's . . . religious observance or practice without

undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." Id.

§ 2000e(j).

Affirmed