`
`NOT PRECEDENTIAL
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
`_______________
`
`No. 24-1563
`_______________
`
`JIM KENNEDY,
`
`
`Appellant
`
`
`
`v.
`
`PEI-GENESIS
`_______________
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
`(D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00164)
`District Judge: Honorable Joshua D. Wolson
`_______________
`
`Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
`on February 20, 2025
`
`Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, and BIBAS and FISHER, Circuit Judges
`
`(Filed: February 25, 2025)
`_______________
`
`OPINION*
`_______________
`
`BIBAS, Circuit Judge.
`
`Jim Kennedy worked as a software developer for Pei-Genesis. His employer required
`
`employees to take a COVID-19 vaccine unless they qualified for a medical or religious
`
`
`* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding
`precedent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`exemption. At first, Kennedy said he did not want to because he thought the vaccine was
`
`unsafe and ineffective. Several days later, he asked for a religious exemption. When he met
`
`with his supervisor and a human-resources manager to discuss it, they found him rude and
`
`fired him for insubordination during the meeting.
`
`Kennedy sued Pei-Genesis under Title VII, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and
`
`the Americans with Disabilities Act. He claimed religious discrimination, a hostile work
`
`environment, failure to accommodate his religious practice, and disability discrimination.
`
`The District Court granted summary judgment for Pei-Genesis, ruling that no reasonable
`
`jury could find that his opposition to the vaccine was religious.
`
`Kennedy now appeals. He insists that his beliefs are religious, and he also objects to
`
`the District Court’s allowing discovery into his medical records and denying his request
`
`for a protective order. He no longer presses his claim of disability discrimination. We re-
`
`view the District Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and its discovery rulings for
`
`abuse of discretion. Tundo v. County of Passaic, 923 F.3d 283, 286 (3d Cir. 2019); Brum-
`
`field v. Sanders, 232 F.3d 376, 380 (3d Cir. 2000).
`
`Start with discovery. The District Court’s rulings were proper. In denying Kennedy’s
`
`request for a protective order, it carefully balanced the relevant factors under Pansy v. Bor-
`
`ough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786–92 (3d Cir. 1994). The District Court concluded
`
`that discovery into Kennedy’s medical records was appropriate for two reasons: (1) the
`
`evidence is relevant to whether he in fact holds the anti-medication, anti-vaccine religious
`
`beliefs that he now espouses, and (2) Kennedy chose to put those beliefs at issue by bring-
`
`ing this lawsuit. That was not an abuse of discretion.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`And as the District Court held, no reasonable jury could find Kennedy’s beliefs were
`
`sincerely religious. That is fatal not only to his religious-discrimination claim, but also to
`
`his hostile-work-environment claim. For both claims, he must show that he “suffered in-
`
`tentional discrimination because of religion.” Abramson v. William Paterson Coll. of N.J.,
`
`260 F.3d 265, 276 (3d Cir. 2001) (cleaned up). A religious belief must be broader than
`
`disconnected moral teachings; it must “lay claim to an ultimate and comprehensive truth.”
`
`Africa v. Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025, 1035 (3d Cir. 1981) (cleaned up). Kennedy claims
`
`that his religious belief is: “you got to watch what you put in your temple.” App. 108. But
`
`when his supervisor first brought up the vaccine, Kennedy did not mention his religion, but
`
`only safety. The single reason that the COVID-19 vaccine violates his supposed beliefs is
`
`that he thinks this one vaccine is “unsafe” and “dangerous.” App. 216–17. When a friend
`
`messaged him to “forget religion and all that” and focus on how the vaccine is “untested[,]
`
`unproven[,] possibly unsafe,” Kennedy responded “I’m with you 100% .… It just seems
`
`like common sense.” App. 487. Given his belated, inconsistent invocation of religion and
`
`his private message to his friend, no reasonable juror could find his isolated moral objection
`
`to be part of a “comprehensive truth.” Africa, 662 F.2d at 1035 (cleaned up); Fallon v.
`
`Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr., 877 F.3d 487, 492–93 (3d Cir. 2017) (rejecting similar health
`
`concerns about flu vaccine as a medical concern or “isolated moral teaching”). We will
`
`thus affirm.
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
