In the never-ending saga of COVID-19 vaccination employment litigation, a newly filed lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia underscores the ongoing legal challenges employers face when enforcing COVID-19 vaccine mandates, particularly in remote work settings. The case, Thomas-Andre v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Georgia Inc., centers on an employee’s claim that she was unlawfully terminated after her religious exemption request to Kaiser’s COVID-19 vaccination policy was denied.
Background of the Case
The plaintiff is a practicing Seventh-day Adventist who worked as a remote care manager for Kaiser. According to the complaint, she performed 100% of her job duties from home and had no direct interaction with patients or coworkers.
In August 2021, Kaiser implemented a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for all employees. The policy allowed for religious exemptions and pledged to engage in an interactive process with employees who submitted such requests. The plaintiff applied for an exemption, citing sincerely held religious beliefs and referencing a similar accommodation Kaiser had granted her the prior year for the flu vaccine.
Her COVID-19 exemption was provisionally approved, but Kaiser later reversed course and denied it after further internal review. When she declined to be vaccinated, she was terminated in January 2022. The lawsuit alleges Kaiser failed to accommodate her religious beliefs, discriminated against her on the basis of religion, and retaliated against her for opposing the denial — all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Legal Significance for Employers
This case arrives in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which raised the bar for employers seeking to deny religious accommodations. Under the Groff standard, employers must demonstrate that accommodating an employee’s religious belief would result in substantial increased costs or other serious burdens — moving beyond the previous "de minimis" hardship standard.
In Thomas-Andre, the plaintiff’s fully remote status will likely present a significant hurdle for Kaiser because the court will likely review whether requiring vaccination for an employee with no in-person contact was justified under Groff’s heightened standard. Employees with in-person contact, especially those dealing with vulnerable populations, have historically had a more challenging time securing an exemption from mandatory vaccinations. In contrast, remote workers can often show a significantly lower risk of transmission, making it harder for employers to argue that accommodating them would cause an undue hardship.
Key Takeaways for Employers
- Don’t Overlook Remote Employees in Accommodation Reviews: Employees working exclusively from home may be entitled to broader accommodations, as the risk of spillover effects into the workplace are minimal.
- Interactive Process Is Critical: Courts continue to expect documentation that employers engaged in a meaningful, individualized process before denying religious accommodations.
- Understand the Post-Groff Legal Landscape: The threshold for showing undue hardship is now significantly higher. Employers must identify substantial burdens — not just logistical inconvenience or speculative risks.
- Maintain Consistency Across Accommodation Requests: The plaintiff’s previous approval for a religious exemption to the flu vaccine may be used to challenge the denial of her COVID-19 exemption. Employers should be prepared to explain differences in policy or risk.
Employers that maintain mandatory vaccination policies should reassess their religious accommodation protocols in light of evolving legal standards. As this case demonstrates, failure to accommodate remote workers or fully engage in the interactive process could lead to costly litigation. With heightened scrutiny under Groff and continued litigation in this space, a cautious and individualized approach remains the best defense.
Click here to subscribe to our latest alerts and insights.