726 F.Supp.3d 749
E.D. Mich.2024Background
- Troy Bass, a former "Account Executive, Business Sales" at T-Mobile, refused T-Mobile’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds, specifically Catholic beliefs opposing vaccination and compulsion.
- Plaintiff requested a religious accommodation, which was temporarily granted but later withdrawn, requiring him to be vaccinated by February 15, 2022, or face unpaid leave and possible termination.
- T-Mobile offered Plaintiff a remote (non-customer-facing) alternative position that did not require vaccination, which he declined, arguing the offers were not concrete and provided less favorable compensation/terms.
- Plaintiff was ultimately placed on unpaid leave and then terminated for not being vaccinated or accepting alternative roles.
- Bass sued T-Mobile, alleging failure to accommodate (under Title VII and ELCRA) and retaliation for requesting accommodation.
- Both parties filed motions for (partial) summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sincere Religious Belief (Title VII) | Bass had a sincere Catholic belief against all vaccinations, including COVID-19. | Bass’s belief was not a recognized religious belief but a personal choice; not sufficiently religious. | Court found Plaintiff alleged sufficient sincerely held religious belief (for summary judgment). |
| Notice of Conflict | Bass informed T-Mobile of his religious conflict via the accommodation request. | Bass did not inform T-Mobile of all specific religious objections (e.g., fetal tissue rationale). | Court found Plaintiff adequately informed T-Mobile of the religious conflict. |
| Reasonable Accommodation | T-Mobile did not provide a reasonable/accommodating offer; alternatives were not equivalent or permanent. | Bass was offered a reasonable remote position at same pay, which he declined; fulfillment of duty. | Reasonableness is a factual issue for the jury; summary judgment denied both ways on Count I. |
| Duty to Accommodate (ELCRA) | ELCRA requires religious accommodation similar to Title VII. | ELCRA does not impose a duty to reasonably accommodate religious belief. | No such cause of action under ELCRA; summary judgment for T-Mobile on Count III. |
| Retaliation (Title VII/ELCRA) | Bass was retaliated against for requesting accommodation. | A request for accommodation is not protected activity; Plaintiff admits no actions taken for making request. | No prima facie case; summary judgment for T-Mobile on Counts II and IV. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (explains summary judgment burden shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Ansonia Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60 (any reasonable accommodation by employer is sufficient under Title VII)
- Emp. Div. Dep’t of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (courts should not judge religious validity/sincerity)
- United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (sincerity of religious belief standard)
- Tepper v. Potter, 505 F.3d 508 (prima facie test and burden shifting for accommodation claims)
- Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (clarifies "undue hardship" in religious accommodation)
- Stanley v. ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., 808 F. App’x 351 (requesting accommodation is not a protected activity under Title VII)