Case 3:23-cv-01653-IM Document 15 Filed 04/04/24 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Case No. 3:23-cv-01653-IM
`
`OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`Before this Court is Defendant Oregon Health and Science University’s (“OHSU”)
`
`Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”), ECF 6, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant
`
`contends that Plaintiff Priya Prakash’s Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF 1, fails to allege sufficient
`
`PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`PRIYA PRAKASH, an Individual,
`
`
`
`
`
`OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE
`UNIVERSITY, an independent public
`corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Caroline Janzen, Janzen Legal Services, LLC, 4550 SW Hall Blvd, Beaverton, OR 97005.
`Attorney for Plaintiff.
`
`Madeleine Sophie Shaddy-Farnsworth, Thomas R. Johnson, and Brenda K. Baumgart, Stoel
`Rives LLP, 760 S.W. Ninth Ave., Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205 Attorneys for Defendant.
`
`IMMERGUT, District Judge.
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01653-IM Document 15 Filed 04/04/24 Page 2 of 7
`
`facts to state a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.1 See
`
`MTD, ECF 6 at 5–10. Plaintiff counters that, in general, “plaintiffs should not be penalized for
`
`not articulating their religious beliefs with perfect clarity and precision.” Plaintiff’s Response to
`
`Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“Resp.”), ECF 9 at 5. This Court holds that the Complaint lacks
`
`the allegations needed to survive 12(b)(6) scrutiny and thus GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss
`
`with leave for Plaintiff to amend her Complaint.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The facts below are those contained in the Complaint.2 Plaintiff worked for Defendant for
`
`about three years as a Coding Specialist. Compl., ECF 1 ¶ 4. Plaintiff worked remotely from
`
`home, and her job did not require her physical presence at Defendant’s facilities. Id. ¶ 4. She
`
`worked for Defendant during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. See id. ¶¶ 6–7.
`
`In the Summer of 2021, Defendant announced that it was rolling out a COVID-19
`
`vaccine mandate that permitted exceptions based on religious belief and preexisting medical
`
`conditions. Id. ¶ 7. On or about September 14, 2021, Plaintiff submitted her religious exemption
`
`paperwork, but Defendant denied it two weeks later. Id. ¶¶ 7, 10.3 Plaintiff then received a single
`
`dose of the vaccine. Id. ¶ 10. Nonetheless, Plaintiff was placed on unpaid leave on or about
`
`October 19, 2021 and was then fired two days later. Id.
`
`
`1 Although Plaintiff also brought a claim under O.R.S. 659A.030, she has agreed to
`voluntarily dismiss this claim. MTD, ECF 6 at 2 n.1; Resp., ECF 9 at 2 n.1.
`
`2 On a motion to dismiss, this Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations from
`the Complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant’s favor. See Daniels-
`Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010).
`
`3 The Complaint is missing a ¶ 9.
`
`PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01653-IM Document 15 Filed 04/04/24 Page 3 of 7
`
`On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed this suit against Defendant, seeking damages
`
`exceeding $800,000, attorney’s fees, and costs. Id. at 8 (Prayer for Relief). She alleges that
`
`Defendant unlawfully discriminated against her in the workplace based on her religious beliefs,
`
`in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to e-17. Id. ¶¶ 16–27. In
`
`response, Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss now before this Court on February 9, 2024. See
`
`generally MTD, ECF 6.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A motion brought under Rule 12(b)(6) “tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v.
`
`Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be
`
`granted only when there is no cognizable legal theory to support the claim or when the complaint
`
`lacks sufficient factual allegations to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Shroyer v. New
`
`Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). To be entitled to a
`
`presumption of truth, a complaint’s allegations “may not simply recite the elements of a cause of
`
`action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable
`
`the opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir.
`
`2011). The court must draw all reasonable inferences from the factual allegations in favor of the
`
`plaintiff. Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Off. Sol., 513 F.3d 1038, 1043 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). The court
`
`need not, however, credit the plaintiff’s legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations.
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks sufficient allegations regarding the conflict between her
`
`religious beliefs and a COVID-19 vaccine mandate to survive Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
`
`This Court accordingly grants the Motion.
`
`PAGE 3 – OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01653-IM Document 15 Filed 04/04/24 Page 4 of 7
`
`Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer “to discharge any individual . . . because
`
`of such individual’s . . . religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). To make a prima facie case of
`
`religious discrimination under Title VII, Plaintiff must show that: “(1) she had a bona fide
`
`religious belief, the practice of which conflicted with an employment duty; (2) she informed her
`
`employer of the belief and conflict; and (3) the employer threatened her or subjected her to
`
`discriminatory treatment, including discharge, because of her inability to fulfill the job
`
`requirements.” Tiano v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679, 681 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation
`
`omitted).
`
`The Complaint makes four allegations concerning Plaintiff’s religious beliefs. First,
`
`Plaintiff is “a devout Hindu” who “had serious objections to taking the vaccine because she
`
`believes that her body is the abode of God” and that “it is her duty to respect it by believing in
`
`God’s power of healing and ensuring the purity and balance of elements in her body.” Compl.,
`
`ECF 1 ¶ 7. Second, “[t]here was no need for additional accommodation” for Plaintiff’s religious
`
`beliefs “as she was already working remotely full-time.” Id. ¶ 11. Third, “Plaintiff is a member
`
`of a protected class on the basis of her devout and sincerely held religious belief.” Id. ¶¶ 17, 23.4
`
`And fourth, “Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs conflicted with the Defendant’s COVID-
`
`19 vaccine mandate.” Id. ¶ 24. Only the fourth statement addresses a conflict between her
`
`religious belief and Defendant’s vaccine mandate, but it does not describe the conflict.
`
`This single conclusory allegation is insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6). Although “the
`
`burden to allege a conflict with religious beliefs is fairly minimal,” courts need not “take
`
`plaintiffs’ conclusory assertions of violations of their religious beliefs at face value” and must
`
`
`4 The Complaint inexplicably refers to “[Plaintiff’s] religious beliefs in the ten[ets] of
`Christianity,” Compl., ECF 1 ¶¶ 17, 23, yet Plaintiff alleges that she follows Hinduism.
`
`PAGE 4 – OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01653-IM Document 15 Filed 04/04/24 Page 5 of 7
`
`still ask “whether [a plaintiff] has alleged an actual conflict.” Bolden-Hardge v. Off. of Cal. State
`
`Controller, 63 F.4th 1215, 1223 (9th Cir. 2023) (citations omitted). This Court has previously
`
`dismissed Title VII complaints for failing to describe the conflict between the plaintiff’s
`
`religious beliefs and the challenged employment action. Craven v. Shriners Hosps. for Child.,
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-01619-IM, 2024 WL 21557, at *3 (D. Or. Jan. 2, 2024); Gamon v. Shriners
`
`Hosps. for Child., Case No. 3:23-cv-00216-IM, 2023 WL 7019980, at *3 (D. Or. Oct. 25, 2023).
`
`Because the Complaint here likewise fails to explain how Plaintiff’s Hindu beliefs conflict with a
`
`vaccine mandate, it must be dismissed.
`
`This conclusion comports with those of other courts. See, e.g., Kather v. Asante Health
`
`Sys., No. 1:22-cv-01842-MC, 2023 WL 4865533, at *5 (D. Or. July 28, 2023) (“[V]ague
`
`expressions of sincerely held Christian beliefs alone cannot serve as a blanket excuse for
`
`avoiding all unwanted employment obligations.” (citation omitted)); Troulliet v. Gray Media
`
`Grp., Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-5256, 2023 WL 2894707, at *5 (E.D. La. Apr. 11, 2023)
`
`(holding that it was insufficient for a plaintiff to “rel[y] merely on her conclusory assertions that
`
`she remained unvaccinated because she would not violate her religious beliefs”); Cagle v. Weill
`
`Cornell Med., 22-cv-6951 (LJL), 2023 WL 4296119, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2023) (“Bald
`
`allegations that a plaintiff has a religious belief and that those religious beliefs conflict with an
`
`employment requirement are insufficient to state a claim for religious discrimination under Title
`
`VII.” (citation omitted)); Rainey v. Westminster Pub. Schs., Civil Action No. 22-cv-03166-RMR-
`
`KAS, 2023 WL 6292722, at *3 (D. Colo. Sept. 27, 2023) (“Threadbare references to Plaintiffs’
`
`religious beliefs are insufficient to satisfy the first element of a failure to accommodate claim at
`
`the motion to dismiss stage.” (citations omitted)); see also Prodan v. Legacy Health, No. 3:23-
`
`cv-01195-HZ, 2024 WL 665079, at *3 (D. Or. Feb. 12, 2024) (“[C]ourts appear to be in
`
`PAGE 5 – OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01653-IM Document 15 Filed 04/04/24 Page 6 of 7
`
`agreement that a general allegation of religious conflict without identifying a conflicting belief is
`
`insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.”). Consistent with the foregoing case law, Plaintiff’s
`
`conclusory references to a conflict between a vaccine mandate and her religious beliefs cannot
`
`survive Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny.
`
`As this Court has previously explained, it is not an empty formalism to require that
`
`plaintiffs describe with some factual specificity the conflict between their religious beliefs and a
`
`vaccine mandate. See Gamon, 2023 WL 7019980, at *3 (citing cases). In some instances, further
`
`detail can reveal that a plaintiff opposed a vaccine because he believed it was carcinogenic—a
`
`medical belief that is not entitled to Title VII protection. See, e.g., Craven, 2024 WL 21557, at
`
`*4; see also Prodan, 2024 WL 665079, at *3 (“[M]any courts have held that allegations of a
`
`religious belief coupled with a secular objection fails to plead a bona fide religious belief in
`
`conflict with an employment duty because the objection itself is secular.”). In other cases, by
`
`contrast, further detail can show that a plaintiff’s opposition to the vaccine stemmed from a
`
`religious belief—for instance, if the plaintiff alleges that her beliefs in the sanctity of human life
`
`meant that she could not inject “abort[ion]-tainted vaccinations” into her body. See, e.g., Gamon
`
`v. Shriners Hosps. for Child., No. 3:23-cv-00216-IM, 2024 WL 641715, at *3 (D. Or. Feb. 15,
`
`2024). This Court does not prejudge whether Plaintiff’s aversion to the COVID-19 vaccine falls
`
`into one category or the other; rather, it dismisses her Complaint because she fails to say enough
`
`for this Court to make that determination.
`
`Consequently, this Court does not find at this stage that it is “clear that the complaint
`
`could not be saved by any amendment.” Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 573 F.3d 728, 737 (9th Cir. 2009)
`
`(quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 692 (9th Cir.
`
`2001)). Plaintiff thus has leave to amend her Complaint. See Resp., ECF 9 at 8–9.
`
`PAGE 6 – OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-01653-IM Document 15 Filed 04/04/24 Page 7 of 7
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, this Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 6,
`
`with leave for Plaintiff to amend her Complaint. Any amended complaint must be filed within
`
`fourteen days.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`DATED this 4th day of April, 2024.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Karin J. Immergut
`Karin J. Immergut
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`PAGE 7 – OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`