In Welcome v. Amplity Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00830-RK, 2023 WL 2542617 (W.D.Mo. March 16, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendnt’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s religious discrimination claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Amplity argues that Plaintiffs fail to plead a plausible Title VII claim for religious discrimination under either a disparate treatment or disparate impact theory because Plaintiffs “fail to allege that they are in a class protected by Title VII.” Specifically, Amplity argues that Plaintiffs allege that Amplity’s COVID-19 vaccination policy “created two classes of employees; injected and uninjected,” classes which are not protected under Title VII. (Doc. 14 at 11; see Doc. 1 at ¶ 67.) In both Counts II and V, however, Plaintiffs allege that their sincere religious beliefs precluded them from complying with Amplity’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, for which they requested accommodation but were denied. (Doc. 1 at¶¶ 126 & 202.) In addition, Plaintiffs allege that Amplity’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement “had an adverse effect on each plaintiff who was unable to consent to a COVID-19 vaccination injection for religious reasons,” and that they were terminated because they did not comply with that policy.
Accordingly, the court found that plaintiffs plausibly alleged, at this early stage in litigation, a Title VII religious discrimination claim in both counts alleging disparate treatment and disparate impact, sufficient to withstand defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.