United States of America v. Jeffrey Bilyeu and Jessica Bilyeu v. UT-Battelle, LLC

Knoxville, Tennessee, civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiff who objected on religious grounds

to a coronavirus vaccine mandate imposed by their employer, UT-Battelle, during the pandemic.



* * *



A reasonable juror could conclude that that this type of interview process "could well

dissuade a reasonable worker from making” a request for accommodations. Burlington, 548

U.S. at 68. That is because, for example, a reasonable juror could conclude that UT-Battelle

designed the materials to convince employees that their religious views were incorrect or to

shame those for views different from those held by the "Vatican and US Bishops” and "[l]eaders

from a variety of faith traditions.” Essentially, a reasonable juror could believe the fact sheet

would make interviewees feel like bad Christians and attempt to coerce the employee into

changing their religious beliefs. And that leads directly to the conclusion a reasonable juror

could reach that UT-Battelle was forcing Mr. Bilyeu to give up his religious beliefs to comply

with a workplace mandate. Forcing someone to sit through a harassing interview where they are

told they are a "bad Christian” who should "see the light” and "change their ways” is a

materially adverse employment action, and Mr. Bilyeu presented evidence essentially arguing

that this is what took place. It is now up to a jury to decide whether it actually did. The district

court erred in granting summary judgment on that basis, so we reverse the grant of summary

judgment and remand for a jury trial.



* * *

Summary judgment in favor of Defendant.



Summary judgment as to Mrs. Bilyeu firmed because she lacks Article III standing. Summary judgment on Mr. Bilyeu’s disparate treatment and failure-to

accommodate claims vacated and REMANDed those claims so the district court may reconsider its decision in light of intervening Supreme Court precedent. Finally, REVERSED the grant of summary judgment on Mr. Bilyeu’s retaliation claim and REMAND it for further proceedings because Mr. Bilyeu has presented evidence that might persuade a reasonable jury to believe he

suffered adverse action for seeking a religious accommodation.