A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling in favor of the University of Kentucky, dismissing a lawsuit brought by a former employee who claimed that the university’s COVID-19 test-or-vaccinate policy violated federal prohibitions on religious discrimination in employment.
DeVore argued that the university’s requirement for employees to either get vaccinated or undergo weekly COVID-19 testing conflicted with her religious beliefs. She maintained that her faith prohibited her from medical testing without informed consent, describing the university’s mandate as manipulative and coercive, violating her bodily autonomy.
After the university denied her requests for religious exemption, DeVore refused both vaccination and regular testing, and was placed on unpaid administrative leave. Rather than face termination, she chose to retire in January 2022. She later filed a lawsuit, accusing the university of failing to accommodate her sincerely held religious beliefs.
In September 2023, the district court ruled against DeVore, and the appeals court has now upheld that decision. The appellate court determined that DeVore failed to provide sufficient evidence that her religion conflicted with the university’s COVID-19 policy.
“She supplied no affidavit or declaration articulating how complying with the Policy conflicts with her religious beliefs or practices,” the court stated in its Oct. 11 opinion. “She filed a six-page complaint, which in any event is unverified, that included only the conclusory statement that ‘due to her deeply held religious beliefs,’ she ‘objected to mandatory Covid testing.’ DeVore has, in fact, throughout this litigation never identified in the record what her religion is.”
The court further noted that while Title VII protects religious practices, it does not extend to objections based on personal preferences or secular concerns. DeVore’s objections, particularly to the invasiveness of testing and allegations of coercion on the part of the university, were found to be rooted in personal moral beliefs rather than in religious principles.
“DeVore’s coercion objection applies to oral swab and saliva testing, but it turns only on DeVore’s view that mandatory testing is inequitable and unfair,” the judges wrote. “DeVore drew no connection between her fairness conclusion and any ’religious principle‘ she follows, leaving it simply to reflect her ’personal moral code.'”
The court also upheld the district court’s finding that, even if DeVore had demonstrated a religious conflict, accommodating her requests would have imposed an undue hardship on the university. As a department manager, DeVore’s position required daily in-person interactions with students, faculty, and staff, with the court determining that allowing DeVore to work remotely would have placed an undue burden on the university’s operations.
Neither DeVore’s attorney nor the University of Kentucky immediately responded to requests for comment on the ruling.
