4th Circuit Reverses Trial Judge’s Dismissal, Revives Religious Accommodation Suit against Inova Health after BLG Oral Argument
In a unanimous opinion published Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled the trial judge erred in dismissing a religious accommodation suit against Inova Health. Following oral argument by Bosson Legal Group’s attorneys, the Fourth Circuit ruled all three counts of the civil rights lawsuit should move forward against Inova. The opinion should signal a change in tides for the hospital chain, which is facing numerous other civil rights lawsuits on similar grounds.
In a statement, Bosson Legal Group attorney, and lead counsel in the appeal, Timothy Bosson noted: “We’re thrilled the Fourth Circuit overturned the district court’s clear error and joined its sister circuits in affirming the broad protections all religious Americans enjoy. Our client’s claims were more than sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss and we look forward to ensuring employers that violate federal civil rights law are held accountable.”
“…[A]t this stage, the district court erred in dismissing her claims. …[A]ll three of Barnett’s claims should have survived a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. ”
Bosson Legal Group’s client, Ms. Barnett, is a former pediatric nurse and alleges Inova Health forced her to choose between her employment and religious beliefs in violation of federal civil rights law. The district court had initially dismissed Ms. Barnett’s lawsuit, finding she had failed to state sufficient claims. The district judge claimed Ms. Barnett’s beliefs that God had instructed her not to take the COVID-19 vaccination were not religious in nature. Moreover, the district court ruled Ms. Barnett’s claims for disparate treatment under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Virginia Human Rights Act were duplicative.
The Fourth Circuit said the trial judge wrongly applied federal civil rights doctrines and that “all three of Barnett’s claims should have survived a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” “Barnett has sufficiently alleged she is a sincere follower of the Christian faith at this stage,” wrote Judge Gregory. The Fourth Circuit further rejected the district court’s argument that Ms. Barnett’s disparate treatment claims were duplicative, noting a Plaintiff may plead multiple or alternative claims based on the same facts. The judges added that “Barnett has sufficiently alleged facts supporting a reasonable inference of discriminatory intent at this stage.”
In the oral argument, BLG’s principal Timothy Bosson was joined by counsel from the Virginia Attorney General’s office, who argued a portion of the appeal. During oral argument, the Fourth Circuit judges seemed favorable to arguments advanced by Ms. Barnett’s counsel, while scrutinizing those advanced by Inova. In June, the Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, ex-EEOC officials, and non-profit legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom each filed amicus curae briefs in support of the appeal.
Following the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, Ms. Barnett’s lawsuit will move forward again in the U.S. District Court.
Attorneys Timothy Bosson, Robert Rose, and Isaiah Kalinowski represent the Plaintiff.
Referencing Kristen Barnett v. Inova Health Care Services, case number 24-1271, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
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. Barnett’s 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 that 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. Barnett’s 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 employees’ 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.
Attorneys Timothy Bosson, Robert Rose, and Isaiah Kalinowski represent the Appellant.
Referencing Kristen Barnett v. Inova Health Care Services, case number 24-1271, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice