Virginia Attorney General, Ex-EEOC Officials Urge Fourth Circuit to Overturn Threatening Ruling in BLG Civil Rights Appeal
In an amicus brief filed last Thursday, Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares urged the Fourth Circuit to reverse a lower court ruling in a civil rights case that could have implications for millions of religious Virginians.
In addition to the brief filed by the Attorney General’s office, amicus curiae briefs were also filed by former officials from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and by non-profit legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, all supporting BLG’s appeal of a ruling that threatens to strip religious Virginians’ protections against religious discrimination in the workplace. BLG originally filed suit against Inova Health Care Services for wrongfully firing a nurse due to her religious beliefs in violation of federal civil rights law.
Kristen Barnett, a longtime Inova employee, was terminated in July 2022 after refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. A devout Christian, Ms. Barnett believes her body is a temple and that receiving the vaccine would violate her beliefs which call for her to honor God with her body. Though Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs, Inova denied her application for a religious exemption and refused to work with Ms. Barnett to find an alternative arrangement.
Ms. Barnetts case was dismissed by the U.S. District Court, which held that Ms. Barnett’s beliefs were not religious in nature. Referencing the Supreme Court case Wisconsin v. Yoder, the lower court claimed that defining Ms. Barnett’s views as religious would amount to a destabilizing ‘blanket privilege’ which the courts could not endorse.
Attorney General Miyares urged the Fourth Circuit to overturn the lower court’s ruling on Ms. Barnett’s religious beliefs. “Title VII requires a broad definition of “religious belief,” and the district court erroneously chose an exceedingly narrow one. Barnett’s beliefs are […] plainly religious, and her claims should be allowed to proceed.”
““Barnett’s beliefs are […] plainly religious, and her claims should be allowed to proceed.””
Writing in a separate amicus brief, former EEOC general counsel Sharon Gustafson and her former attorney advisor Rachel Morrison called the lower court’s ruling a clear misinterpretation of federal civil rights law. “Title VII requires reasonable accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs. There is no ‘blanket privilege’ consideration,” the attorneys argued in the brief. Further, they point out the justices’ ruling in Wisconsin v. Yoder applied to non-religious personal beliefs, not sincerely held religious beliefs protected by Title VII. "Any policy concerns about 'ordered liberty' are properly accounted for under Title VII's undue hardship consideration," the attorneys noted. "But since an undue hardship determination is a fact-specific inquiry, it cannot form the basis of dismissal."
In a statement, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel John Bursch added, “[C]ourts are not meant to act as religious inquisitors when evaluating beliefs under Title VII and the First Amendment. We are urging the 4th Circuit to overturn the lower court’s decision and uphold the religious protections that all Americans enjoy.”
BLG’s Isaiah Kalinowski, counsel in Ms. Barnetts case, commented that he hopes the attorneys’ input “…will assist the Fourth Circuit to see that religiosity of sincerely held religious beliefs is a broad inquiry, not a narrow scrutiny as applied by the trial court.” As the suit continues, BLG is committed to ensuring the Courts uphold federal protections for employee’s religious rights and prevent employers from discriminating against employees for following their own convictions. Ms. Barnett’s case is still in the briefing stage and has yet to be set for oral argument at the Fourth Circuit.
Referencing Kristen Barnett v. Inova Health Care Services, case number 24-1271, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Read more at Law360