Walden v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
669 F.3d 1277
11th Cir.2012Background
- Walden sued CSC, CDC, and two CDC officials alleging free exercise, RFRA, and Title VII claims, with a district court granting summary judgment for all defendants.
- CDC delegated CDC clinic EAP operations to CSC under a contract, which allowed CDC to require immediate removal of an on-site EAP employee for suitability issues.
- Walden, a devout Christian, believed her religion prohibited counseling same-sex relationships and refused to provide such counseling, while remaining willing to refer to colleagues.
- In July 2006 Walden discussed the conflict with her supervisor; in August 2007 she admitted to an intake with a same-sex relationship client where she refused to counsel due to personal values, leading to referral to another counselor.
- District personnel investigated Walden’s handling of the referral; CSC and CDC considered Walden’s future conduct in referrals and concluded her approach could undermine the EAP program.
- In August 2007–August 2008 Walden was removed from the EAP contract and laid off; CSC offered internal reassignment resources, but Walden did not apply for other positions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek declaratory relief | Walden seeks declaratory relief against CDC and officials in official capacities. | Standing requires ongoing, future injury; past injuries do not qualify for declaratory relief. | Walden lacks standing for declaratory relief against CDC and officials. |
| Individual-capacity qualified immunity for Chosewood and Zerbe | Chosewood and Zerbe violated Free Exercise and RFRA; no reasonable basis for immunity. | Actions were reasonable; no clearly established rights violated. | Qualified immunity as to Free Exercise and RFRA claims granted; no liability in individual capacities. |
| Free Exercise whether removal burdened Walden’s religion | Removal was motivated by religious objection to same-sex counseling. | Removal based on handling of Doe referral, not Walden’s religion; reasonable investigation. | No violation; removal was not a burden on Walden’s Free Exercise rights. |
| RFRA burden | CSC actions burden Walden’s religion; pretext shown by statements and timing. | Removal burdened by contract and staff decisions, not religious objections; actions reasonable. | No substantial burden under RFRA; qualified immunity applies. |
| Title VII religious discrimination and accommodation | CSC failed to reasonably accommodate Walden’s religious beliefs. | CSC provided a reasonable accommodation by offering internal reassignment options; Walden did not pursue them. | Title VII claim fails; CSC offered reasonable accommodation and Walden did not pursue it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beadle v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 29 F.3d 589 (11th Cir. 1994) (employer need not prove all proposed accommodations; reasonable accommodation suffices)
- Bruff v. North Mississippi Health Services, Inc., 244 F.3d 495 (5th Cir. 2001) (employer accommodated religious belief by aiding transfer to another position)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (government as employer has broader control over employee speech)
- Malesko v. Correctional Servs. Corp., 534 U.S. 61 (U.S. 2001) (Bivens against private entity under contract with government foreclosed)
- Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2007) (title VII reasonable accommodation framework applies to religious beliefs)
- Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (U.S. 1994) (case-by-case reliance on employer’s reasonable view of events in Pickering analysis)
- Watts v. Fla. Intl. Univ., 495 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2007) (reasonableness of belief necessary in free exercise termination cases)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing test for public employee speech)
- Shahar v. Bowers, 114 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir. 1997) (employer may rely on information from subordinates in employment decisions)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1986) (reasonable accommodation in religious liberty contexts)
- Umbehr v. Board of Cnty. Comm’rs, 518 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1996) (extension of Pickering to government contractors)