Menk v. The Mitre Corporation, 1:23-cv-00053

Plaintiffs, former employees of MITRE Corporation, filed suit alleging improper termination due to religious objections to MITRE's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Claims were brought under Title VII (religious discrimination/failure to accommodate), the ADA, constitutional amendments, and wrongful discharge; non-Title VII claims had been previously dismissed.
The court had earlier dismissed the case but permitted Plaintiffs to move for leave to file an amended complaint limited to Title VII religious accommodation claims.
The proposed amended complaint separated Plaintiffs into three groups: those terminated after filing religious exemption requests, those alleging constructive discharge, and those who did not request exemptions at all.
MITRE moved to deny amendment, arguing futility of Plaintiffs’ claims based on the facts alleged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiffs terminated after seeking religious exemptions state a plausible Title VII claim	Plaintiffs allege sincerely held religious beliefs were disclosed and ignored, resulting in termination	MITRE disputes sincerity and sufficiency of plaintiffs' alleged beliefs	Amendment not futile; claims may proceed
Whether constructive discharge claimants state a plausible claim for failure to accommodate	Plaintiffs allege work conditions were intolerable due to CEO statements and the vaccine policy	MITRE argues conditions fall short of legal threshold for constructive discharge	Claims are insufficient/frivolous; amendment denied
Whether Plaintiffs who did not request religious exemptions state a viable Title VII claim	Plaintiffs argue exemption requests were futile or not required post-Abercrombie	MITRE argues Title VII requires notice to employer; absence of request is fatal	Claims are insufficient as a matter of law; amendment denied
Applicability of 'futile gesture' doctrine to accommodation claims	Plaintiffs assert they need not formally request exemption if doing so would be futile	MITRE contends doctrine does not apply to accommodation claims	Court finds doctrine inapplicable; must request exemption

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (motion to amend standard: should freely give leave when justice so requires)
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (scope of employer's obligation to accommodate religious belief)
Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (standards for constructive discharge)
E.E.O.C. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768 (failure to accommodate may not require actual knowledge but requires motivation to avoid accommodation)
Bristow v. Daily Press, Inc., 770 F.2d 1251 (constructive discharge intolerability standard)