We are only privy to what this plaintiff's lawyer paints in the worst possible light to the defendant employer, which
is part of his services to his plaintiff client.
The "exemption," compared for example to a Jehovah's Witness ordered by an employer to receive a blood transfusion or a muslim of a particular sect assigned to slice pork in a grocer's deli, is arguably contrived by this plaintiff, especially if there are other vaccinations in his medical history surfacing during the discovery phase of this litigation....
A former Riverside County Trader Joe’s employee has filed a federal lawsuit against the company alleging his civil rights were violated when he was fired after requesting a religious accommodation …
ktla.com
"...The lawsuit says that Trader Joe’s mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for store managers in July, and Crawford requested an accommodation because of his religious beliefs as a “devout evangelical Christian” who “believes the Bible is the living word of God.” His lawyers say the Monrovia-based grocery company granted his request for accommodation.
The complaint filed in Crawford’s case does not describe what aspect of his religion is the basis for his opposition to vaccination.
Despite his having been granted the religious accommodation, Crawford was told that only vaccinated employees would be allowed to attend a required meeting in August and that skipping it “was going to negatively affect his performance review,” the complaint alleges..."
This large corp.'s general consul is reported to have made the decision to discharge this 26 year, management level
employee, and again, it seems a deliberative, reasonable decision, especially with the reminder that we're only reading a one-sided argument. IOW, the legal consul is responsible for maintaining compliance as the best practice to avoid government penalties first, protecting against private party litigation, secondarily.
If the HR Dept., supported by the general consul, decided this would be a defensible dismissal, versus putting up with
whatever this veteran employee is anticipated to burden the corp. with going forward, they likely would have erred on the side of continuing to attempt to manage him.
His lawyer admits he was blocked from attending a required, group meeting, because he is out of compliance with vaccination policy, but was accommodated and despite no indication from the employer that is so far disclosed, he sought assurances that not attending the meeting in person would adversely affect his employment status?
Why, is the question, and then he was accused of unrelated conduct in conflict with his position in management.:
"...Crawford then got an email from Trader Joe’s general counsel saying that he would get a summary of the relevant information from the meeting and that his vaccination status wouldn’t be the basis for any negative performance evaluation, according to the lawsuit.
Some time later, Crawford
was told he was being fired from Trader Joe’s because he had stopped communicating with his regional vice president, disregarded the company’s “Open Door Policy” and approached the issue from an “adversarial perspective,” and also acted in conflict with the interests of the company, the lawsuit alleges...."
No comment from the employer, more bluster from the dismissed employee's attorney...
A former Riverside County Trader Joe’s employee has filed a federal lawsuit against the company alleging his civil rights were violated when he was fired after requesting a religious accommodation …
ktla.com